Dear Editor:

The focal point of health care in any community is a responsive and effective Emergency Department.

For residents of Webster and surrounding communities, that focal point is the Emergency Department at Harrington HealthCare at Hubbard. This Emergency Department, on Thompson Road in Webster, has saved countless lives over the years. Its highly trained nurses, physicians and staff handle 12,000 cases a year -- a number that is expected to rise to 15,000 in the next three years.

This Emergency Department does an excellent job of meeting the emergency medical needs of the community. But it is also in need of an overhaul of its physical plant and its medical equipment. The Emergency Department was built in 1955 and has not had a substantial updating since that time.

Harrington HealthCare System has launched an $8.8 million fundraising campaign to rebuild the Emergency Department and outfit it with new state-of-the-art lifesaving equipment. This will allow it to meet the medical needs of Webster, Dudley, Oxford, Douglas, Thompson and surrounding community for years to come.

As Harrington’s new Director of Development, it has been my honor and privilege to work with members of our community and colleagues at Harrington HealthCare System to raise funds for this all-important campaign.

To date, slightly more than $1 million has been raised and a generous donor has pledged to match contributions, dollar for dollar, up to $4 million. This means that whatever gift you make today will have twice the impact, because it will automatically be doubled.

Please consider making a gift and help our vision of a new, modern Emergency Department become a reality. To donate or to learn more about this campaign, please go to www.harringtonhospital.org/give. Your donation will help us save more lives.

Sincerely,

Sean T. Mitchell
Director of Development
Harrington HealthCare System

Letter to the Editor:

Lately I have been thinking about where the Massachusetts Department of Transportation finds its project engineers. When they started to work on the I395 Exit 2 interchange at Route 16, I just shake my head. It is apparent that none of them either live in Webster nor have they ever driven in this area when Mapfre/Commerce Insurance is letting out. Traffic is a total disaster and it doesn’t seem that the state cares about it. A traffic light has been needed at this location for a very long time. Some really talented state engineer decided that any traffic traveling east on East Main Street should continue onto Gore Road (Route 16) and then turn left onto Sutton Road, crossing Route 16 to get onto I395 North. Now wouldn’t it make more sense to have anyone on East Main Street or Thompson Road take Worcester Road (Route 12) into Oxford and access I395? There is now a traffic light on Route 12 and it seems to work very well. I have even spoken to a couple of the Webster Police officers who have been working this detail and they cannot understand why they detour them down Sutton Road. It just doesn’t make any sense. But when does anything that the State of Massachusetts does make sense? There have been so many accidents at the Exit 2 interchange, and when I contacted someone at the state after my wife had an accident there, I was told that they were planning a rotary there. I cannot see how they can engineer a rotary in the space that is available. Just doesn’t make any sense. I think it is time that the State installs traffic lights in the interest of public safety.

Sincerely,

A concerned Webster Citizen.

_______

Will Webster Stand Alone?

When the polls close Monday, June 25th will Webster join its neighbors in accepting millions of dollars from the state for its New Elementary School project? Or will we find ourselves standing alone, left to fix our aging school on our own dime without any state funding and continuing to make do with our improper grade configurations? To be sure, Webster shouldn't follow the crowd and build a new school just because our neighbors are doing it. We should build a school because the need is clearly documented and because it is an opportune time financially. Both of these criteria hold true for Webster as Monday's ballot approaches.

The need is clear. Park Ave is overcrowded, undersized by 23% for the current enrollment and using makeshift rooms that were intended for storage as learning spaces. The school is not only too small, but after 50 years of excellent service, it has deficiencies in technology, energy, electrical, ventilation, and other areas common to buildings a half-century old. Single pane glass windows/walls, virtually no insulation and a 50 year heating system that is past its useful life make the building very expensive to heat. The roof is in need of repairs and the handicapped accessibility is limited at best. Just to bring the building up to code is estimated at nearly $20 Million. These are not small maintenance issues that could have been taken care of within the regular maintenance budget. Webster's share of the new building project is only $17 million making it less expensive to build new with the State aid than to update on our own. And yes, Webster's share of the total project is estimated to raise the average homeowner's tax bill somewhere between $171 and $189 per year but if this doesn't happen now, the cost will only go up in the future and the need will only be greater.

The time is opportune. Despite the difficult economic times, historically low interest rates and $30 million in state funding mean that Webster will never get a deal this good again. The state grant comes from one penny of our sales tax – the sales tax Webster residents pay each time they make a purchase. The MSBA has approved $30 million of these funds to come back to Webster, but voters have to say yes.

Our neighbors’ new school projects are approved and breaking ground:

Southbridge, $50 million from MSBA

Sutton, $30 million from MSBA

Douglas, $27 million from MSBA

The MSBA focuses on the right-sized, most fiscally responsible, and educationally appropriate solutions to create safe and sound learning environments. There are no luxuries. In its six-year history, the MSBA has made more than $8 billion in reimbursements to cities, towns, and regional school districts for school construction projects.

Whose students and whose property values will Webster care for next? Will we send our share of state funding to another town, or on Monday, June 25, will we elect to keep moving Webster in the right direction? It’s time to follow the crowd, Webster, because in this case other towns have gotten it right.

Bobby Phillips

Friends of Webster Public Schools

whydoitnow.com for more info

April 30, 2012

Dear Editor,

I am writing in support of the May 2012 Ballot Override Question #2 requesting $6,000 for energy/utility costs for the Town of Dudley.  The annual cost of this request to a single family home is 9.0 cents.

We have all felt the sting of increased energy costs at the gas pump, heating fuel for our homes and residential electricity. The Town shares these same energy increases in providing town services such as operating police and fire vehicles, streetlights, snowplowing, building operations and the Library.

Sadly, energy forecasters do not predict any immediate relief from the escalating energy costs we are now experiencing.

I believe approving a nominal override request for essentially nine cents a year to the average home owner is fair and responsible for the various services the town provides.  Does this solve all of our energy concerns?  No, it does not, but it does help our community in providing essential services we all rely on.

Sincerely,

Peter Jankowski
Town Administrator

To the Editor,

Last night (April 23, 2012) at the selectmen’s meeting the Webster school committee presented plans to build a new Park Ave. School.

The $47 million Dollar project will cost the home owner of a $230,000 valued home about $191 more a year in taxes, combine this with a Bay Path request to build a new school at $33 more a year in taxes for a $250,000 valued home for 29 years if passed. It should be made clear to the homeowners exactly what all the loans on the table will cost them.

For a $230,000 valued home (check tax bill for you home value)

Bay Path $ 33.00 plus for 29 years

Park Ave. School $191 plus for 29 years

Two Town trucks $ 12 plus for five years

New police Station

Rebuild Fire station

Repair High School

New Library (on the drawing board)

Water and Sewer Rate increase

[Items] 4 to 7: amount to be determined as yet

State figures for the town of Webster

Population   Employed   Year

16415          7,127       2010

16767          6,526       2012

==============================

352 more 601 less employed

Foreclosures January 2012 to April 22

2008 58

2009 34

2010 67

2011 43

================================

       224

where is the saturation point for borrowing??

Mike Finamore 
Finance committee Chairman

To the editor,

Do your homework before you state the "Town lacks the authority to adopt rules and regulations for Webster Lake." Anyone who has read MGLA 131s 45 would clearly know that a bylaw requires approval of the designated state agency head before the bylaw can be approved by the town. This was noted in the Attorney General’s response. The Attorney General’s decision does not mean that the town does not have the authority to regulate Webster Lake in any way, as the title of this article may lead many to believe. The petitioners and Town did exactly what they were supposed to do AND it was legal. They voted a by-law per authority given the Town of Webster in CMR 323 Section 13 to regulate the lake, then sent it to the Attorney General’s office to see if it conflicts with other laws, then, once approved, it should be forwarded to the State agency identified in CMR 323 for approval. Seems the problem was who to send it to first - the Attorney General or the State Agency, but I’m sure they will work that one out in time for the decision on the December town meeting votes.

Jason Piader

EDITOR’S NOTE: The statement: "Town lacks the authority to adopt rules and regulations for Webster Lake" is an exact quote by the Attorney General’s letter. We are not interpreting the law.

Distortion of Record?

To the Editor,

In response to Mr. Ricci’s letter:

Number 1, I am NOT desperate in my effort to be returned to the Webster Board of Selectmen. This is what I want to do and I enjoy talking and listening to and for the people and their needs, their gripes and where they want Webster to go.

The record is the record. A public document for everyone to read and review.

When I was a member of the board, I did make mistakes, I openly admitted them, in public.

As many people know, I am very candid on views, and if wrong, I admit my mistakes, then move on.

During some very turbulent times, I had to take a hard stand, some not popular, for the good of the town.

Memorial Beach increases were and are, which I publically stated, the people of the town should not be charged. Why do we have to pay for cleaning up after the out of towners??

There are other revenue incentives to offset the costs associated with the operation of Memorial Beach.

The department heads set the fees, but they are usually okayed by the board.

I am a small business owner and did not agree on the sign by-law, in fact, had set 2 different forums so that businesses in Webster may better try and understand what was being proposed. Town Meeting later shot down this article. Mr. Ricci’s former board (Planning) became your Selectman’s agenda. Not mine.

The Lake is our greatest resource, but what about the rest of the Town?? As a member of the Board of Selectmen, I represented the WHOLE TOWN. I would like to continue that job.

Check the record, the Selectmen’s meeting minutes and the Town Budgets, it is a matter of Public Record.

Mr. Ricci is well known for ‘Micromanaging’ and possible ethics violations.

I have always tried to be a voice for ALL the People, not just a select few.

Mr. Ricci…’Let’s make a deal’.. If you quit telling everyone lies about me.. I’ll quit telling everyone the truth about you.

Respectfully,

Bob Miller
A True Webster Resident

******* 

Supports Incumbent

To the Editor,

I would like to take this opportunity to give you my reasons for supporting Dan Ricci for the Board of Selectmen.

Dan and I have worked side by side for the last three years and I have always found him to have an understanding of both sides of the issues before casting his opinion or vote. With Dan’s commitment to Webster, he has always stood up for what is right and has never been afraid to vote on the difficult issues.

Webster will be undertaking major construction projects in the next few years and with Dan’s background as a construction manager, he will be a great asset to us.

Please join me in supporting Dan Ricci for the Board of Selectmen on May 7.

Jeff Duggan, Webster resident and 
member of the Board of Selectmen

******* 

Board has great rapport

To the Editor,

The Worcester Telegram dated April 24th said it all on page 7. The present sitting board of selectmen gave a rating of 4.54 out of a 5 to the town administrator who replied "This is a great board to work with." He went on to commend his and the board’s GREAT rapport with department heads and staff. This is something we have rarely seen in the past. Usually the revolving door was installed for the Administrator’s office.

Now in the Patriot Newspaper dated April 18th on page 2 Mr. Miller’s own words admitted to being "abrasive and that he has to re-package himself" and "needs to adjust and take it down a notch."

Again, we are on the road to future success in Webster and need to keep the same driver at the helm.

Vote for Dan Ricci for the betterment of the town of Webster.Karl Kuhn Sr., Webster

******* 

To the Editor:

In reading your articles for the four candidates for Selectmen in Webster, and in researching positions for them, it appears, unfortunately, that two of them, seem to be running because they are bored, or looking for something to do. Mr. Chenevert and Mr. Ricci presented themselves as individuals who are truly interested in serving the Town of Webster.

I applaud Mr. Chenevert for, "throwing his hat into the ring" for his first election bid. He presented his views and opinions clearly and concisely, and while I do not agree with some of them, it is refreshing to see his candor.

Mr. Ricci is running for re-election, and has a number of results of which he is justifiably proud. The Board of Selectmen, for the last few years, has had the difficult job of digging out from a number of previous decisions and judgements, while also facing a troubled economy on local, state, and federal levels. They have not "shirked their responsibility," or avoided the problem, but taken a stance based on what is best for the town. Thanks to the effort of Mr. Ricci, and the entire board and Town Administrator, Webster is moving in the right direction. There is still much work to be done, however. Mr. Ricci’s involvement in the on-going processes, as well as his forthrightness and professionalism with which he has served as Chairman this past year, lead me to believe that he is the best candidate for the position. While others may disagree with my conclusion, I urge all to vote this May 7th.

Sincerely,
Mark Miller
Webster, MA