July 9, 2011
--I stopped in at a Mobil station on the way to the Montpelier library today. I asked to use the restroom, and the male cashier said that was fine.
I went into the restroom and saw an orange cone in the middle of the dry floor. The cone said “Wet Floor” on it.
When I went back into the store, I took the cone with me and put it on the counter in front of the cashier. I said, in a normal tone of voice, “You left this cone in the bathroom; there’s no wet floor there. You wouldn’t want the cone to get lost or stolen.”
The cashier said to me, reprovingly, “It stays there at all times.”
I left the store and provided more proof of my lack of saintly self-control by spitting on the ground near the gas pumps.
It wasn’t the same Mobil station where I got a “Do Not Trespass” notice for having tried to talk to the manager about harassment issues several weeks ago. I never touched anything in that Mobil station. I also never raised my voice; all I did was try to talk to the manager, and he called the police after I left. I haven’t been back to that one.
“Wet Floor” signs, like Caution road signs, have a legitimate purpose when they’re being used properly. They are supposed to alert people to the presence of wet floors and other hazards, so that people can avoid areas and situations where they can get hurt. If a business or a town government leaves Wet Floor and Caution signs out all the time in places where there is no wet floor and there are no hazards, then those signs lose their ability to warn people about real danger when it’s there.
What happens when there is wet floor that people need to be careful about, and someone charges right past a sign, falls and breaks a bone or worse? What happens when there is a row of Caution cones by the side of the road at night, and someone drives into it and into a ditch because of thinking that it’s just a harassment signal and that there’s no need to read the signs for what is supposed to be their legitimate meaning?
Shouldn’t businesses and city governments be liable for those occurrences? The signs and cones are being used in a manner which is inconsistent with their intended purposes. The way that those signs and cones are being used now is misleading and is putting people’s lives in danger.
@ 12:34 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 9, 2011
Here’s what at the top of the front page of the Gannett-owned Times Argus today:
Title: “Vt. to study education funding”
Author listed: “Thatcher Moats: Vermont Press Bureau”
Inset quote: “The study will inform the debate over tax policies next year when the Legislature reconvenes, said Cummings.”
Article:
“Montpelier: The Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee on Thursday chose a California-based consultant to do a comprehensive study of Vermont’s unique and politicized education funding system.
The committee, made up of 10 lawmakers, chose Lawrence O. Picus and Associates over two other consultants that submitted bids, said Sen. Ann Cummings, chairwoman of the committee.”
The library's closing and I have to go.
Copyright L. Kochman July 9, 2011 @ 12:55 p.m.
The restroom is locked permanently now; you have to go to the front desk and get a key for it. The sign on the outside of the door says something such as "Due to recent vandalism...."
Yeah, I'm a vandal, and people who support these issues aren't supporting criminal activity..... I mean, what do they mean?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 9, 2011
Sometimes when I start things on a word processing program and then transfer it as one essay to Weebly, things show up in front of the first part of the essay. I didn't have time to proofread earlier today.
Also on the front page of today's Times Argus, there's a caption for an article on another page. The caption says: "Inside:
Here's the rest of the article from the Times Argues today:
-------------------------------------
"Picus is a professor and a traditional expert on property taxes based in North Hollywood, Calif., who already understands Vermont's education funding system, Cummings said.
Picus' bid was "head and shoulders" above the rest, she said. "He knows his stuff."
Picus' proposal won't be public until a contract is signed, said Cummings, but she noted the Legislature budgeted $200,000 for the study.
The study will inform the debate over tax policies next year when the Legislature reconvenes, said Cummings.
Education is funded primarily with property taxes, and the study will be used in combination with recent studies on Vermont sales and (here the Times Argus says: "See Study, Page 5. On page 5A it continues:)
income taxes by the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission, said Cummings, who is also chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee.
With information on the three broad-based taxes, Cummings said, lawmakers will "be able to sit down and take a look at our tax policies and see if they are fair and equitable, if there are things we can make better, and maybe we'll even need to raise some revenue."
The goal of the study is to see how well two laws that reshaped education funding, Act 60 and Act 68, have worked.
The Legislature passed Act 60 in 1997 after a Vermont Supreme Court ruling that said inequity in education between districts violated the Vermont Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
Act 68 was passed in 2003 to amend Act 60.
The laws have been sources of controversy for years as some politicians and others have criticized the education funding system as unwieldy and blamed it for high property taxes.
The controversy hasn't gone away, although it has been quieter since former Gov. Jim Douglas--a persistent critic of the funding system-left office in January.
Over the years studies have examined elements of the education funding system, said Cummings, but none has been this broad.
Some lawmakers have questioned whether this is another study that will sit on a shelf and collect dust.
Cummings doesn't think that will happen because there are such strong political views on education funding.
"I don't think the political dynamic is there to allow us to do that," said Cummings.
Cummings said her hope is that an outside consultant who doesn't have a hardened opinion will produce valuable information for lawmakers.
"I think we'll get a really fresh and informed report on this," she said.
The study is scheduled to be delivered to legislative leaders and Gov. Peter Shumlin by Jan. 18."
--------------------------------------------
The article ends with this:
"thatcher.moats
@timesargus.com"
--I stopped in at a Mobil station on the way to the Montpelier library today. I asked to use the restroom, and the male cashier said that was fine.
I went into the restroom and saw an orange cone in the middle of the dry floor. The cone said “Wet Floor” on it.
When I went back into the store, I took the cone with me and put it on the counter in front of the cashier. I said, in a normal tone of voice, “You left this cone in the bathroom; there’s no wet floor there. You wouldn’t want the cone to get lost or stolen.”
The cashier said to me, reprovingly, “It stays there at all times.”
I left the store and provided more proof of my lack of saintly self-control by spitting on the ground near the gas pumps.
It wasn’t the same Mobil station where I got a “Do Not Trespass” notice for having tried to talk to the manager about harassment issues several weeks ago. I never touched anything in that Mobil station. I also never raised my voice; all I did was try to talk to the manager, and he called the police after I left. I haven’t been back to that one.
“Wet Floor” signs, like Caution road signs, have a legitimate purpose when they’re being used properly. They are supposed to alert people to the presence of wet floors and other hazards, so that people can avoid areas and situations where they can get hurt. If a business or a town government leaves Wet Floor and Caution signs out all the time in places where there is no wet floor and there are no hazards, then those signs lose their ability to warn people about real danger when it’s there.
What happens when there is wet floor that people need to be careful about, and someone charges right past a sign, falls and breaks a bone or worse? What happens when there is a row of Caution cones by the side of the road at night, and someone drives into it and into a ditch because of thinking that it’s just a harassment signal and that there’s no need to read the signs for what is supposed to be their legitimate meaning?
Shouldn’t businesses and city governments be liable for those occurrences? The signs and cones are being used in a manner which is inconsistent with their intended purposes. The way that those signs and cones are being used now is misleading and is putting people’s lives in danger.
@ 12:34 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 9, 2011
Here’s what at the top of the front page of the Gannett-owned Times Argus today:
Title: “Vt. to study education funding”
Author listed: “Thatcher Moats: Vermont Press Bureau”
Inset quote: “The study will inform the debate over tax policies next year when the Legislature reconvenes, said Cummings.”
Article:
“Montpelier: The Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee on Thursday chose a California-based consultant to do a comprehensive study of Vermont’s unique and politicized education funding system.
The committee, made up of 10 lawmakers, chose Lawrence O. Picus and Associates over two other consultants that submitted bids, said Sen. Ann Cummings, chairwoman of the committee.”
The library's closing and I have to go.
Copyright L. Kochman July 9, 2011 @ 12:55 p.m.
The restroom is locked permanently now; you have to go to the front desk and get a key for it. The sign on the outside of the door says something such as "Due to recent vandalism...."
Yeah, I'm a vandal, and people who support these issues aren't supporting criminal activity..... I mean, what do they mean?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 9, 2011
Sometimes when I start things on a word processing program and then transfer it as one essay to Weebly, things show up in front of the first part of the essay. I didn't have time to proofread earlier today.
Also on the front page of today's Times Argus, there's a caption for an article on another page. The caption says: "Inside:
Here's the rest of the article from the Times Argues today:
-------------------------------------
"Picus is a professor and a traditional expert on property taxes based in North Hollywood, Calif., who already understands Vermont's education funding system, Cummings said.
Picus' bid was "head and shoulders" above the rest, she said. "He knows his stuff."
Picus' proposal won't be public until a contract is signed, said Cummings, but she noted the Legislature budgeted $200,000 for the study.
The study will inform the debate over tax policies next year when the Legislature reconvenes, said Cummings.
Education is funded primarily with property taxes, and the study will be used in combination with recent studies on Vermont sales and (here the Times Argus says: "See Study, Page 5. On page 5A it continues:)
income taxes by the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission, said Cummings, who is also chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee.
With information on the three broad-based taxes, Cummings said, lawmakers will "be able to sit down and take a look at our tax policies and see if they are fair and equitable, if there are things we can make better, and maybe we'll even need to raise some revenue."
The goal of the study is to see how well two laws that reshaped education funding, Act 60 and Act 68, have worked.
The Legislature passed Act 60 in 1997 after a Vermont Supreme Court ruling that said inequity in education between districts violated the Vermont Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
Act 68 was passed in 2003 to amend Act 60.
The laws have been sources of controversy for years as some politicians and others have criticized the education funding system as unwieldy and blamed it for high property taxes.
The controversy hasn't gone away, although it has been quieter since former Gov. Jim Douglas--a persistent critic of the funding system-left office in January.
Over the years studies have examined elements of the education funding system, said Cummings, but none has been this broad.
Some lawmakers have questioned whether this is another study that will sit on a shelf and collect dust.
Cummings doesn't think that will happen because there are such strong political views on education funding.
"I don't think the political dynamic is there to allow us to do that," said Cummings.
Cummings said her hope is that an outside consultant who doesn't have a hardened opinion will produce valuable information for lawmakers.
"I think we'll get a really fresh and informed report on this," she said.
The study is scheduled to be delivered to legislative leaders and Gov. Peter Shumlin by Jan. 18."
--------------------------------------------
The article ends with this:
"thatcher.moats
@timesargus.com"