UPDATE: YouTube video of Finch swearing in Allen to Ethics Commission taken down. Mack Allen, a new member of the city’s Ethics Commission, is the latest controversy that has embroiled the charter group managing Dunbar School. It was disclosed on Wednesday the community outreach coordinator working at Dunbar School has a criminal history that includes multiple drug offenses and is also listed as a low risk level on a sex offender registry in Texas. Acting Superintendent of Schools Fran Rabinowitz described the latest revelation as “incredibly disturbing.” This is a thorny issue for Finch, irrespective of Allen claiming he has redeemed himself. Finch was aware of Allen’s drug past, but not his listing on a sex registry, according to the mayor’s spokesman.
Thursday morning a YouTube video OIB posted Wednesday night of Finch swearing in Allen to the Ethics Commission was made private, presumably by New Vision International Ministries where Allen also works.
Ethics Commission members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Allen has spoken often about redemption from drugs–including his confirmation hearing before a City Council committee–and in a city like Bridgeport, redemption is a path to assimilate back into a community. But as an Ethics Commission member? (Related story about his approval by City Council follows this story.)
Finch’s spokesman Brett Broesder issued this statement in response to the Allen revelations:
“The administration was aware of Mr. Allen Junior’s past drug convictions. But Mr. Allen Jr. served his time. He’s become a pillar of the community. We’ve known him to be an employee at New Vision International, and he’s highly recommended by his pastor. We also know him to be serving as a great example of how people can persevere and turn their lives around. Regarding tonight’s revelations, it was not disclosed to the city that Mr. Allen Jr. had a sex offender conviction in another state. And, Mr. Allen Jr. is not listed on the Connecticut sex offender registry.
“We’re still collecting the facts on this particular case. But the bottom line is that Mayor Finch has two kids who have graduated from Park City public schools. He also has two kids who currently attend Bridgeport public schools. He would never want kids to attending a school where a registered sex offender works. That said, Mayor Finch is calling on school officials in Bridgeport to take whatever actions are allowable under the law to ensure no registered sex offenders are working with kids in our schools. He’s willing to do whatever he can to make certain that this happens. And, he’s calling on legislators for a change in the law to ensure national sex offenders registries can be part of routine background checks for appointees on boards and commissions.
Bridgeport’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) conducts a local background check on every appointee to a city board or commission. They also check the Bridgeport Police Department records. In addition, OIA works with the state to perform a Connecticut background check on every candidate. But OIA is not allowed to conduct a federal background on any board or commission candidates. National Crime Information Center standards do not allow the OIA to conduct a nationwide check on persons appointed to boards or commissions. If an appointee does not disclose their entire criminal history, background checks that are allowed to be conducted by the OIA will not catch said offenses.”
In response, Lt. Rebecca Garcia of the Office of Internal affairs made the following statement:
“For what is allowed under the law, we have a very extensive background check process for all potential board and commission appointees. However, we are open to seeking out additional ways to make our process more extensive, as long as they are fair and legal.”
Two weeks ago, following disclosure he had a criminal past and falsely claimed he had a doctorate, Michael Sharpe resigned as the chief executive of the company that manages the low-performing Dunbar School. The state is now reviewing its relationship with FUSE. This latest revelation will also ramp up a review by the local school board about the company’s management of the school.
From Jon Lender and Ed Mahony, Hartford Courant:
A community outreach coordinator for a Bridgeport school run by FUSE, the embattled charter school group, has a criminal conviction background that includes drug offenses and a listing on the Texas sex offender registry.
The record of Mack Allen, 49, of Bridgeport, surfaced in a confidential background check that FUSE had a law firm perform in January after he had begun working. But the organization didn’t inform Bridgeport schools Supt. Frances Rabinowitz about it until Tuesday night, after she requested background information on several FUSE employees as part of an audit.
Rabinowitz said Wednesday that she’s “incredibly concerned” about the revelation and that FUSE’s failure to disclose it until now adds to her doubts about whether the organization should continue running Dunbar School under a year-old arrangement approved by the state Department of Education.
Full story here.
“Donnelly said the new revelation about Allen “affirms the need” for state education officials’ decision Monday to hire a Hartford attorney, Frederick Dorsey, to investigate FUSE, also called Family Urban Schools of Excellence. She added that “we have already asked Mr. Dorsey to investigate this matter further. We will continue working closely with Superintendent Rabinowitz to assess this situation and to figure out the best path forward for the school and the community.”
I hope our OIB friend JML is listening closely to what time is telling us. I am extremely suspicious of the State Department of Education selection of Hartford Attorney Frederick Dorsey to “conduct” the FUSE investigation. What is there to investigate as far as the two confirmed convicts are concerned? I’m sure Dorsey is not required to report directly to the Bridgeport BOE or Bridgeport schools Supt. Frances Rabinowitz who by the way has been doing a fine job.
This is a full-blown FUSE and it started a fire. Pardon me for not resisting the temptation to throw some gasoline on this fire. It is totally out of the norm to have attorneys doing background checks and investigations. It is a conflict of interest to have attorneys connected to some of the parties involved or those having an interest to cover things up, to be conducting these investigations and background checks. People who have applied for employment with the BBOE had to go to the Bridgeport Police Department for a background check. The person having a BC conducted on must fill out a form with their basic information such as: D.O.B., Social Security number, and most importantly, Finger (I like the sound of that!) Prints. Before anyone is selected to serve on an appointed commission with the City of Bridgeport, a more stringent background check is required. The background check on anyone wishing to served on a City of Bridgeport Commission is conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) whose members (police officers) are selected by the mayor. Question: How did Mack Allen get appointed to the Ethics Commission despite having a criminal record?
“It was not clear what led FUSE to have the background check done on Allen after the start of the 2013-14 school year. Lawyer Andrew R. Crumbie, whose Hartford firm performed the check and submitted it Jan. 6, declined comment Wednesday.”
The link below will make it clear as to what was at play here. Attorney Andrew R. Crumbie has a business relationship with the City of Bridgeport and is a strong advocate for minority businesses like FUSE. Lennie Grimaldi–never mind. Jonathan Pelto should look deeper into this and FOI City records to see how much money Andrew R. Crumbie received for his investigation of minority business contracting and where is his report.
onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/finch-retains-law-firm-to-investigate-minority-business-contracting/
Excellent points, Joel.
Joel,
The interval of time between the hiring of Mr. Allen by FUSE and/or his appointment to the City Ethics group and this revelation has been a false time of surety for the public. As this story has rolled out over the past two days, our assumptions as to how things are working and how they are actually functioning keep being undermined.
A basic assumption of mine is whether I apply for a position in an educational institution working with youth or for a Board or Commission position with the City, the questions I will be asked go beyond “Name, Rank and Serial #.” I have assume there will be at least one general question asking about past activities that may have put the applicant in serious contact with the legal system, locally or otherwise. I then assumed such an application, copy of photo/ID, and fingerprints would be sent to a broad data base manager for a report.
We have heard such research by the City “takes time” or has been “backed up” in recent months. Nowhere has there been a notion shared by either PR Director for the Mayor (who makes the nominations) or for the Police (who have a hand in the research) anything other than a thorough search was completed! And if the “quick check” by the Bridgeport Police Internal Affairs Department turned up anything, to whom was it revealed, and who for their own peculiar reasons kept it quiet? Perhaps the City Departments (working as the well-oiled machine we know they can be when addressing environmental projects) owes taxpayers of the community an explanation.
I am happy to understand as of this moment there have been no reports of current irregularities in job performance by this individual at Dunbar School. I hope the final record proves that belief accurate.
I remind all readers systems and standards in the City of Bridgeport are in such disrepair and disregard in too many areas and this causes some of our “shock and awe.” But members of the BOE and school teachers, administrators, parents and the public at large must continue to focus on the real problems, assay priorities, correct the issues and move on, leaving areas better than we found them. To the extent the Finch Administration shares a major hand in dismantling structure and process, disregarding Charter and Ordinance, and ignoring the meaning of OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT governance, we are continued in a poor state. These are current ethical issues of those elected and their appointments. Is there any chance for this group to ‘fess up and change? Time will tell.
Who better on the Ethics committee than someone who has committed the two biggest ethical sins?
Drugs and Sex.
This is classic Finch administration standard operating procedure. Only the inner circle and their pals who swear allegiance need apply–qualifications and character not necessary or even wanted. Just blind loyalty and obedience. Mack Allen, Kenneth Moales, you could go on and on.
So much for Ethics, Bill?
Wake up, Bridgeport!!! In order to get approved by the council for his appointment to the Ethics Commission, he had to undergo a complete background check by the BPD and the background report presented to the Misc Matters Committee. So let the mayor and city council start explaining their role in this coverup.
Excellent point, Bob.
Great thanks to the Courant’s Lender and Mahony, and other investigative journalists (and yes thanks to active citizens like JML), for bringing this story to light.
It’s yet another unbelievable breach of the most fundamental standards of governance and upholding the public trust.
And just think, we’d never know about it in Connecticut if it weren’t for professional journalists.
From the Courant article:
FUSE’s agreement with the state for its operation of Dunbar includes a provision that the Jumoke charter organization “agrees that no employee of Jumoke who will work at Dunbar or who will work directly with Dunbar students is listed on any Sex Offender Registry.”
Those of you who might want to say a guy deserves a second chance, etc., remember the regulations that have been broken. This is not some subjective issue on personal freedoms. And your tax dollars went to paying a lawyer to conduct a background check, the results of which were never shared with the public until now.
The children and parents of Bridgeport, especially those served by the Dunbar School, deserve better. All of us in the state of Connecticut deserve better.
Dan Malloy, instead of posing with a Nesquick chocolate milk for the cameras, how about some real leadership?
BOE SPY, come on now, it’s your move to tell us all why this good choice for education and Mayor Finch with these selections, by the way you can’t Google an answer for this one.
Ron Mackey, Megan DeSombre aka BOE SPY is a supporter of dishonest hombres. She will defend them ‘a capa y espada.’
“But OIA is not allowed to conduct a federal background on any board or commission candidates. National Crime Information Center standards do not allow the OIA to conduct a nationwide check on persons appointed to boards or commissions.”
In other words, there just may be more convicted felons or worst yet people with active warrants in other states serving on a board or commission. The NCIC system is the system used to check for state or federal warrants. For how long has the administration and OIA known about this loophole or flaw in the system? I’m sure had Senator Bill Finch known about this, he would have done something about it.
“… he’s calling on legislators for a change in the law to ensure national sex offenders registries can be part of routine background checks for appointees on boards and commissions …” If OIA is not permitted to do a thorough background check on board or commission appointees, why bother hiring lawyers to do background checks on anyone? I would trust a police officer who is sworn in and authorized to conduct business on behalf of the city and its citizens. It should be cheaper than paying connected attorneys. As usual, I’m just hearing talk from the city and no documents being released. Where is this background check report from the law firm of Andrew R. Crumbie? Don’t tell me it was mailed to Vallas and cc’d to Kenneth Moales.
Actually, this guy may have committed another crime. If you move and you are on the sex offender registry, you have to register in the city where you live. I.e., you can’t move away from your registry. I am pretty sure that’s a law but I am not sure it counts for people who were convicted in another state. The ‘crime’ he committed in Texas may not have put him on the registry in CT. Sodomy in a sex crime in Texas but not CT. That would mean any gay couple who were ‘caught’ having ‘relations’ would go on the sex offender registry in CT.
BOE SPY,
See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Second, the reported criminal history of Mr. Allen pertinent to his registered sex-offender status, according to today’s news report, occurred in California.
I know you aren’t one to let facts get in the way of your sermons, but just for the kids at home who may want the facts.
Lawrence v. Texas refers to things you do in your house. What about a car or park? Where the ‘sex crime’ took place is irrelevant. My point was these laws are different from state to state. That ‘crime’ MAY not be a crime in CT. Someone posted a story about two 13-year-olds and a prostitute conducting business in an alley. Regardless, the city found out about these things because they bothered to look. The BOE did not.
BOE SPY:
Where you write, “Regardless, the city found out about these things because they bothered to look.”
Please tell us WHEN the city found out about the criminal history of Mack Allen as described in the 7/2/14 Courant article.
Who in the city found out?
Your source(s)?
BOE,
The mayor said in Feb he was aware of the drug felonies but claims he knew nothing about the sex registry. So are you now saying the mayor is lying???
No, you are correct. My statement was too inclusive. The city knew about the drug offense but not the sex offender list. It still begs the question. Why wasn’t he on the list in CT?
Did the police department miss all this information on this guy or was it kept from the council? Even worse, did the council know about it and choose to ignore it because their messiah Bill Finch told them to?
It’s time to get all these money-grabbing groups out of our school system. We have the people to turn Dunbar around if race isn’t the sole qualification for leadership.
Good points, Andy. Reporting from the Police Department gets to the Miscellaneous Matters committee of the City Council for their review. Did they see any of the information reported now? If not, their acceptance of the data, such as it was provided, was inaccurate and their agreement to recommend approval to the City Council as a whole was unfounded. What is the process to determine the facts? How many people will look foolish or compromised in this developing mess? Of course, there is always a possibility for reform and learning when the stuff hits the fan. Think about revaluation 2013, the access way at Sikorski Airport, School Building Committee authority, by-laws, meetings and voting, City hiring of well-paid administrators where no problem was presented, creation of new Senior Project Manager categories to escape Civil Service categories and compensation guidelines (please finish with your favorite). Time will tell.
I took the time to look at the minutes of the Miscellaneous Matters Committee of the City Council on the evening of February 24, 2014 when Mack Henry appeared before the group to make a statement and answer questions. From the notes that are there, respectful of the subjects considered, it is apparent the City Council members were aware of the nature of the sexual issue and substance history and it was at least two decades in the past. The nature of his position with FUSE before February or after is not very clear from the record.
Do Council members maintain a similar viewpoint with the community when stuff hits the fan? Perhaps it is time for Miscellaneous Matters to indicate what might be activities or history of Board or Commission nominees that might eliminate them from further consideration when they get to the MM group. Time will tell.
And this would mean Finch was aware of the background and DID NOT share this with the BOE. Totally irresponsible.
Sharing that info with the BOE was not his responsibility. Making this information public in any way may be a violation of Allen’s civil rights. That information may be meant for the sole use of the organization that acquired it. A cop got in trouble once for doing background checks on his daughter’s boyfriends. Not only was it misuse of government computers, it was a violation of the boys’ right to privacy.
I am so fed up with hearing because someone is religious and turned to Christ, they are somehow absolved of their past. So if I have a criminal background and I have changed my life but I do not believe in Jesus then I am still a criminal? But this guy should get a pass because of his relationship with Christ. Riiight.
Another board member with a conflict of interest. An employee of a city contractor. Could this be the real motivating factor? Get someone close to charter schools to serve as a firewall on the Ethics Commission?
Paging BOE Spy …
Paging BOE Spy …
It would appear the city of Bridgeport (the mayor, not the BOE) did perform the background check you said was their responsibility. Problem is the mayor sat on the findings.
Bob,
Great points.
I think BOE SPY is busy preparing a plan to raise children with wolves at Beardsley Zoo–so long as it’s a no-bid multi-million-dollar contract to a Perry or Sharpe-type charter company. You heard it here first, on OIB.
Bob Walsh, paging BOE SPY isn’t working, I guess his handlers and the people who feed him his talking points and pay him to make comments are still working on their statement or maybe he’s having problems getting on Google.
Bob–you have the reading comprehension of a BPT schools system graduate. Did you read this or skip it and only pay attention to the parts you like?
Bridgeport’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) conducts a local background check on every appointee to a city board or commission. They also check the Bridgeport Police Department records. In addition, OIA works with the state to perform a Connecticut background check on every candidate. But OIA is not allowed to conduct a federal background on any board or commission candidates.
Read the last sentence again. Just for fun.
But OIA is not allowed to conduct a federal background on any board or commission candidates.
This means the offenses in Texas did not come up. It is also not up to the mayor to tell the ‘nobody ever told us’ BOE. Where I am from, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Why does everyone have to do the BOE’s job for them? If they do not want to do their jobs they should not have run for office. I will bet no one has to tell Fran to cash her paycheck.
You have a lot of nerve. There are quite a few BPS graduates I know who would run circles around you, myself included. Your writing on this blog as well as your own are prime examples of your lack of reading comprehension and overall poor writing skills.
I know. I an also a victim of public education.
Most of all BOE SPY, you are a victim of waking up each day and having to be you. It’s a life sentence. Enjoy!
SPY, as a BPS graduate, I can assure you my comprehension is just fine. Many of my Warren Harding High School friends I graduated with are very successful. That would include a friend that is an attorney, a doctor, a school principal, etc.
When the majority of the BBOE voted to submit Dunbar School into the Commissioner’s Network, they voted to give up complete governance of Dunbar School to Commissioner Pryor for 3-5 years. That is a requirement under the law.
The certified teaching staff is paid from the BBOE’s operating budget, therefore the administration conducted thorough background checks on every certified employee hired by FUSE. The teaching assistants are not certified staff and were fully funded through the Commissioner Network’s grant of approximately $1.3 million, therefore, it was the obligation of FUSE to conduct thorough background checks, not the BPS. This requirement was also stated in the Memorandum of Understanding the CSDE, Vallas and Fuse negotiated and agreed to.
As previously noted on this blog, Fran Rabinowitz was not hired until March 2014. FUSE took over the management of Dunbar School July 1, 2013. Therefore, Ms. Rabinowitz cannot be held accountable for the new hires who were brought in by FUSE prior to her arrival.
As defined by CT state statute, the role of a board of education is to set policy and directly supervise one employee. That is the superintendent of schools, not principals, teachers, custodians, academic assistants, etc. If the BBOE did have any concerns or issues with a BPS employee, they would need to address it with Ms. Rabinowitz, not with the employee themselves.
The egregious conduct and unethical behavior demonstrated by the leadership of Fuse is a reflection on those individuals who received $435,000 in taxpayer funds to manage approximately 300 students at Dunbar School, not Ms. Rabinowitz, who is currently earning approximately $190,000 to “manage” 20,000 students.
In closing, when Mr. Allen testified before the Miscellaneous Matters Committee, he specifically stated he was an employee of Family Urban Schools of Excellence. There were four city attorney’s sitting in the room when he made that statement. Anyone who truly believes Mayor Finch was not aware Mr. Allen was working in Dunbar School is not living in reality.
Convicted felons should be allowed to serve their time, rehabilitate and move on with their lives. However, felony convictions for drug dealing and sexual assault should preclude any adult from working directly with young children.
Really, what would happen to someone, say a teacher, who had a drug arrest while a BOE employee? Are there any BOE employees with drug convictions? (The answers to the questions are 1–nothing and 2–yes). Fuse did do a check. They must have determined what they found should not preclude Allen from employment. Without knowing the nature of the crime I cannot comment either way because I do not know. You seem to know for a fact he was convicted of drug dealing and sexual assault. In other places in the blog someone posted Allen was 13 and something about a prostitute. Why isn’t Allen on the CT registry? Did he not register or did he not have to? Although Fran may not be responsible for this, the BOE, as it stood when these people came to work in BPT, did not pursue this information. I could not say what the mayor truly believe or was aware of. I won’t be voting for him. I will have to wait and see what the choices are before I do know who I will vote for. I am hoping one of those choices will be better than our current choice.
SPY, according to the CT Post interview with Mr. Allen, he himself admitted to being involved with gangs and cocaine dealing. There may be BBOE employees with a drug conviction, I honestly do not know. It could be they work in the Nutrition Center or the Connecticut Avenue building where all the facilities staff is housed. I did not say every convicted felon should be precluded from working for the BPS. Foe instance, if an employee became intoxicated when they were 21 years old and became involved in a fight in a bar and was convicted of felony assault 20 years ago, I think that individual should be allowed to address the issue with the HR Director and possibly be considered for a position. However, anyone convicted of drug dealing or sexual assault should never be allowed to work directly with young children. This is just my opinion.
And the sexual assault part? I agree with you about the fight part. People can change over time.
SPY, at each Regular Board of Education meeting, the BBOE votes to approve every single new hire employed by the BBOE. It doesn’t matter if it is a $10.00 per hour position or a $150,000 position. The academic assistants hired by FUSE were never presented to the BBOE because they are not BBOE employees, they are employees of FUSE. The CSDE provided $1.3 million for Dunbar in 2013/2014. $435,000 was paid directly to FUSE by the state, not the BBOE. The additional $900,000 was utilized to pay for supplies and a variety of positions, including the academic assistants hired by FUSE. If you read today’s CT Post article referencing Mr. Allen’s resignation, it clearly states FUSE did not extend his employment into this upcoming school year. FUSE terminated their relationship with Mr. Allen, not the BBOE. In a previous story, he also stated he interviewed with Mr. Sharpe, not the Director of Human Resources for the BBOE. The hiring of Mr. Allen falls clearly at the feet of Fuse and the CSDE, not Ms. Rabinowitz or the BBOE. Dunbar School is legally under their control, not the BBOE.
How about contractors? Like the people doing the construction at Central? Do they check any of them? Do they require the GC to do checks or will they hold up their hands and say ‘nobody told us?’ If they do require checks on these people why did they not require FUSE to hand over the check FUSE did? FUSE did a check and must have decided nothing they found would be a reason to NOT hire Allen. If the BBOE requested or demanded that information, they may have disagreed. I would think it is better to be too careful than not careful enough.
It is nice to hear how successful you and your classmates are. You must have been among the 77% that actually graduated and the 50% that graduated with the ability to read. Why is it so many of you did so well and so many do so poorly? If you could figure that out you could, singlehandedly, fix the schools in BPT.
Also, sex crimes in TX are very different than CT. If you get caught in TX getting an old fashioned, rusty trombone or dirty Sanchez, you go on the registry. All those things are legal in CT. Sodomy is a sex crime in TX. That would put any intimate gay couple on the sex offender registry in TX but not CT. Fran finally asked Fuse for the background check they did on their own employee. It finally occurred to someone in the BOE to ask for the information. It reminds me of C&C Music Factory, things that make you go ‘Duh.’
BOE, you seem to be the one with the reading deficiency. The sex crime took place in California, not Texas. He served a one-year sentence. But why let the truth stand in the way of your warped defense of the indefensible now.
Follow the bouncing ball:
1. Hartford-based FUSE was contracted by the State Dept of Ed.
2. Mack Allen worked for FUSE’s “Jumoke Academy Honors at Paul L. Dunbar” in Bridgeport.
3. That school is part of the state’s Commissioner’s Network; for that, the district received an extra $1.3 million for Dunbar in 2013-14. Of that, $435,000 went to FUSE.
4. According to the Courant article, FUSE contracted the Hartford law firm Crumbie Law Group to do a “confidential background check” of Mack Allen in Jan 2014. The check turned up the same Mack Allen on a sex offender registry in at least two states.
5. FUSE’s agreement with the state for its operation of Dunbar includes a provision the Jumoke charter organization “agrees that no employee of Jumoke who will work at Dunbar or who will work directly with Dunbar students is listed on any Sex Offender Registry.”
Source: www .courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-fuse-criminal-records-20140702,0,7650617.story
And so, since at least January 2014, FUSE has paid–whether an “employee” or a quasi-employee–someone who FUSE knew to be listed on a sex offender registry to work at the Dunbar school it manages via a contract with the state and a “memorandum of understanding” with the local BOE. Doing so was clearly FUSE’s fault.
6. It was only last week, in the wake of the Michael Sharpe scandal, FUSE agreed to allow the Bridgeport BOE and Superintendent to audit FUSE’s management of “Jumoke Academy Honors at Paul L. Dunbar” school.
7. Only July 1, FUSE notified Bridgeport Superintendent Rabinowitz of the information FUSE had been sitting on since January 2014 pertaining to the results of the “confidential background check” FUSE paid Crumbie law firm to do on Mack Allen.
And yet the numbskull BOE SPY blames our interim superintendent who started in March for the background-check red flags on Mack Allen FUSE knew about since January and only shared this week with Bridgeport’s interim superintendent.
BOE SPY–you are pathetic!
1- yes they did.
2- again, yes.
3- Are you saying the money had something to do with the BOE not wanting to rock the boat? This would be one of the reasons brought forward for Finch to be involved with these guys.
4- true, he committed a sex crime in CA and may have been bound to also register in TX but, possibly, due to the nature of the crime, not CT. It is still only one crime. All the BOE had to do was ask for this info.
5- he is not listed on the CT sex offender registry. Is that because he illegally never registered in CT or because he did not have to?
6- FUSE ‘allowed’ them to audit? As in the BOE needed FUSE permission to do this? Did you mean to write ‘It was only last week, in the wake of the Michael Sharpe scandal, the BOE bothered to audit.’
7- Only July 1, Fran bothered to ask for the information. I am sure FUSE has reams of information. Ask and you shall receive.
The pathetic thing is you are constantly giving the BOE a ‘walk.’ You would have Finch lynched, and rightfully so. Yet you give the BOE a walk as it pertains to the same subject. Hypocrite.
Having volunteered in the Bridgeport Public Schools as an after-school tutor, I know the following:
NO ONE can work or volunteer in the Bridgeport public schools without being fingerprinted and undergoing a federal background check.
I learned from the professionals employed by the BOE who processed my fingerprints and background check, the BOE spends thousands each year ensuring every volunteer, even if they read to the children only once a month, undergoes the process.
Questions:
• Why aren’t charter schools held to the same rigor?
• Are there assumptions they are?
• The state and Bridgeport now needs to make sure each charter school has done their due diligence.
Finally–BOE SPY the Mindless: Your use of “lynched” I find off the scales. You are offensive to no productive end, except for your own sick amusement. And your fetish with sodomy is irrelevant and offensive, too.
Are you sure that was a federal background check? Or was it state or local? I do not know for a fact. I was wondering if you do or were you assuming. BTW, this is just a scam to make people feel involved. It would be cheaper and more efficient to have the teacher do the reading instead of standing there watching the volunteer read, but then the teacher would have to do something.
To answer your questions, FUSE did do a check. They are the ones who gave the info to the (we didn’t check or ask anything) BOE.
Lynched would be a good description of what you are doing. Finch chose to see Allen as corrected by his time in a correctional facility. Allen is not on the sex offender list in CT. We do not know why he was on the list in CA and TX. FUSE knew he was on those lists and chose it was not something that should preclude him from employment. You have chosen he being on the lists is something that should preclude him from employment even though you do not know why he was on the lists and he is listed as ‘low risk.’ You have also chosen to hold Finch at fault and vilify him for this. Yet you do not put the “ignorance is bliss” BOE under the same microscope. This is what I find offensive. One issue with two levels of blame and accountability.
SPY, the construction employees who work on renovation or new construction projects are retained by the City of Bridgeport, not the BBOE. As with any company, it is the responsibility of the employer to conduct background checks, not the client. For example, if you were to hire a exterminator or landscaper you would probably call their main office and contract for their services. The company would then send out one or several of their employees to do the work. Although you retained their services and these employees will be on your property; would it be your responsibility to conduct a thorough background check of these employees or does that responsibility fall on the company who hired them? How can you as a third party conduct a background check? You would need vital information, including DOB, SSN, address, etc. There isn’t a single reputable company that would allow you access to such confidential information. As it relates to FUSE/Dunbar, as I stated previously, once a school enters the Commissioner’s Network, the local school district gives up complete control of that school for 3-5 years. If anyone should have ensured FUSE fulfilled its obligation under the MOU, it would be Commissioner Pryor/CSDE, not the BBOE.
The requirement to do background checks could be part of the contractual obligation. If I hired a company to do work and owned a daycare I could require the company to do those checks and produce them. If this requirement were a state law I may have to require this from all contractors and subcontractors. For example, shipyards have to lay off all employees with dishonorable discharges before starting work on a US navy vessel. From your post I would be led to believe the BOE will not be taking any personal responsibility in protecting BPT students. From a legal (we did what we could so don’t sue us) standpoint, they are not even going to request this information?
SPY, the Commissioner’s Network was enacted as part of the education reform bill in 2012. The law is clear on this issue. Commissioner Pryor and the CSDE are in charge of Dunbar School and FUSE was contracted to serve as the management company. I was at a meeting and read in the CT Post where Ms. Rabinowitz has scheduled a district-wide training for all administrative staff. The principal and asst. principal at Dunbar School informed her they would not be attending because FUSE had scheduled some training. Ms. Rabinowitz called Commissioner Pryor and he informed her the principals would not be attending because of the FUSE training. The BBOE pays 100% of these principals’ salaries and benefits; however, Commissioner Pryor is in charge of Dunbar School, not Ms. Rabinowitz. If this doesn’t demonstrate the point the BBOE and Ms. Rabinowitz have no authority over Dunbar/FUSE, I don’t know what will.
I don’t fully understand how Mack Allen is on the Ethics Commission.
While I do think he means well, I don’t think he should be on the Bridgeport Ethics Commission due to condoning many irregularities on the South End NRZ Board.
The NRZs receives state funding, they have a say in local neighborhood developments, projects, and CDBG monies.
Mr. Allen sits on this Board despite having an expired term and has voted on matters despite this. Imagine someone on the BOE having an expired term yet still voting on the budgets and $52 million projects. Ethically he should have recused himself from voting because his term is expired.
In Fall of 2013 this same Board, including Mr. Allen, voted in support of a $52 public housing development that places low-income families in a FEMA flood zone. I asked for the minutes of this meeting repeatedly and the Board was never able to produce these minutes. I have heard from Board member(s) this meeting actually never took place. If it did not, then ethically, Mr. Allen (along with other Board members) should have pointed this out. If it did take place then they should have stepped up to the plate and provided the minutes. Mr. Allen never addressed the issue despite being on the Board and having a fiduciary responsibility. He was CC’d as a Board member on each request for these minutes.
I also raised the issue people voted on this $52 million project despite having expired terms and despite NOT EVEN being on the Board. Ethically, Mr. Allen (or any other Board member) could have suggested a second vote or could have requested new elections take place prior to voting. Nothing. In addition, it was then decided elections would be frozen back in November of 2013 meaning the composition of the Board would remain the same despite all these expired term limits. So in other words, there is now a Board with expired term limits and elections are frozen that preserves this irregularity and does not allow for the entry of new community members.
Perhaps the most concerning of all this is the Chair of the NRZ, Rev. McCluster, later revealed he is part of the co-development team for the same developer who is building the $52 million public housing. Despite him not revealing nor recusing himself due to this financial conflict of interest, the Board, including Mr. Allen, did not have a problem with this when this conflict of interest was later revealed. I raised this issue about the conflict of interest and voting irregularities NUMEROUS times and suggested a new vote take place. Mr. Allen was CC’d on each and every single correspondence. As a Board member he could have stepped up to the plate but he remained silent.
When ethics are being compromised, silence is probably the worst of all sins.
The South End NRZ is the most corrupt unethical organization I have ever witnessed in my entire life.
I have sat on Boards and Commissions for over 30 years, and never witnessed this kind of corruption from the City Council to the City Attorney’s office, Parks Commission, Zoning and the SE-NRZ.
Rev. McCluster, Chairman of the South End NRZ, should be put back in jail where he belongs.
So this is the makeup of the Finch Administration, Liars, Ex-cons, Sex offenders and Thieves.
God Help Bridgeport!
Is it just me, but it seems as if the closer it gets to election time the more blacks he puts into his administration. He hasn’t done a damn thing for the black community since he’s been in office and now that election is quickly approaching he’s loading up on blacks to follow him around on the campaign trail or to provide a nice photo opportunity.
As a black man I’m glad to see other blacks get jobs, but …
Mack Allen has worked at trying to change his lifestyle of crime and has gotten involved with his church, all of this is what society would want from someone who has been jailed. Mack Allen didn’t force anyone to hire him and put him in for a position with the City, “OTHERS” did that. Mayor Finch in his effort to get black support from the black community and the black church came across Mack Allen and the mayor’s team thought they had found their answer in Allen and they didn’t give a damn about his past crimes, they needed a “black” at any cost. The mayor, the City Council as a whole, the police department have ALL let the voters of Bridgeport down because they made a choice NOT to do their sworn job.
Did Bridgeport PD ever hear of Google???
records.txdps.state.tx.us/SexOffender/PublicSite/Application/Search/Individual.aspx?IND_IDN=6155872&SearchType=Address&ResultsUrl=%2FSexOffender%2FPublicSite%2FApplication%2FSearch%2FResults.aspx%3FSearchType%3DAddress%26StreetNumber%3D7314%26StreetName%3Doak%252520walk%252520drive%26City%3Dhumble%26ZipCode%3D77346%26SearchRadius%3D1%26ResultType%3DTEXT
Up On Bridgeport–the registry says the disposition date is 1998 but in the article he says he was 13 years old when this happened which would have been 1977. or maybe the 1998 disposition is for the cocaine?
“When I was 13, I was out with a friend hanging out on the streets [of Los Angeles] where we shouldn’t have been. … My friend propositioned a prostitute. … They went on the side of the building to conduct their transaction.”
Here is what Mayor Bill Finch’s office has to say about that in an email sent late Wednesday to the Connecticut Post.
Until tonight, Mayor Finch was unaware that Mack Henry Allen Jr. was working anywhere other than New Vision International, and he was unaware of any criminal convictions other than those that were disclosed at the time of his appointment.
In response to this new information coming to light, Mayor Finch’s spokesperson Brett Broesder made the following statement:
“The administration was aware of Mr. Allen Junior’s past drug convictions. But Mr. Allen Jr. served his time. He’s become a pillar of the community. We’ve known him to be an employee at New Vision International, and he’s highly recommended by his pastor. We also know him to be serving as a great example of how people can persevere and turn their lives around. Regarding tonight’s revelations, it was not disclosed to the city that Mr. Allen Jr. had a sex offender conviction in another state. And, Mr. Allen Jr. is not listed on the Connecticut sex offender registry.
“We’re still collecting the facts on this particular case. But the bottom line is that Mayor Finch has two kids who have graduated from Park City public schools. He also has two kids who currently attend Bridgeport public schools. He would never want kids to attending a school where a registered sex offender works. That said, Mayor Finch is calling on school officials in Bridgeport to take whatever actions are allowable under the law to ensure no registered sex offenders are working with kids in our schools. He’s willing to do whatever he can to make certain that this happens. And, he’s calling on legislators for a change in the law to ensure national sex offenders registries can be part of routine background checks for appointees on boards and commissions.”
RE: Background checks on appointees to boards and commissions
Lt. Rebecca Garcia of the Office of Internal affairs made the following statement:
“For what is allowed under the law, we have a very extensive background check process for all potential board and commission appointees. However, we are open to seeking out additional ways to make our process more extensive, as long as they are fair and legal.”
If you take the administration’s explanation, why aren’t they then supporting Newton? The fact Mr. Allen never brought up his past indiscretions makes me question his ethics.
Is it 2015 yet?
Giggle. 🙂
The Mayor sure knows how to pick them well!!! Great judge of character! Here’s a thought, how about a pastor WITHOUT a criminal record. There are plenty!
Let me try to answer Andy’s question about the appointment since I served on the Misc Matters Committee when I was on the council.
Let me first say my best guess would be the BPD came across this info and presented it to the committee. A representative of the mayor’s office would be there to advocate on behalf of the nominee.
They might suggest this was a long time ago. That he has changed his ways, etc. It would be totally up to the committee to decide whether to forward the nomination to the full council. In a case like this I would have either voted no or made sure it was not included on the consent calendar. I would also try to table the item to ensure it was further vetted and to give both the mayor and the individual the opportunity to withdraw the name. I had done this when on the council and at times the candidate would after some thought and/or prodding do the right thing.
When it got to the full council, the council would normally meet in caucus. Again someone from the mayor’s staff, the council president or maybe even the president would advocate for the nominee. At times it might be suggested if you were inclined to voted against them you not mention anything from the background check in public because it wasn’t fair to the nominee. Again, I would not abide by those requests. The majority would see no problem with it. The majority would defer to the mayor. If the mayor has no problem, they have no problem.
What I am saying is there are several opportunities for the council to step up in a case like this but apparently they did not.
And even if all these opportunities were ignored, any council member could have and, in my opinion, should have shared this with BOE members and administrators.
The system failed. The council failed. The mayor failed.
From Jon Lender and Ed Mahony, Hartford Courant. This is for the reporters from the Bridgeport Post. This is how you do an investigative report. To the editors, maybe a few of you should go intern with the Hartford Courant. The reporters for the Post could not find a boob in a bra. Christ, stories are breaking left and right and what do we get from the Post? Drivel.
I can’t wait to hear from the misc committee on this appointment.
Councilmembers: Vizzo-Paniccia, Swain, Taylor-Moye, Brannelly, Feliciano, Halstead, Banta.
These are the council people who passed along their support for this candidate and recommended his appointment to the ethics committee. Like a bunch of lemmings, the full council went along.
And add to the list of failures …
The Bridgeport OIA failed.
Lt. Rebecca Garcia seems to think the citizens of the city should know and understand what their “very extensive background check process” and what legal constraints they have because she then says “we are open to seeking out additional ways to make our process more extensive, as long as they are fair and legal.”
How is the public supposed to suggest improvements to a system that does not perform basic steps and detect felons or persons on sex registries? Cop out!
Or is the caveat “fair and legal” and she gets to decide.
You should add the BOE did not check or ask anyone anything. Would that count as a failure?
This situation is amazing.
The mayor nominates a known felon to serve on a body to review matters of ethical behavior and the city council approves, going on record to compliment him.
The mayor’s office defends the selection of a felon and the police department office of internal affairs makes excuses for being inept. Apparently, Lt. Garcia feels it is illegal to use Google.
I was a member of the city council when the ethics ordinance was adopted. It is disheartening to see the ethics commission degenerate over time into a meaningless body.
The frustration expressed by those of us commenting on this situation is heightened by the fact the system has collapsed. Who can we turn to? The mayor? The city council? The police department?
Will anyone considering a bid for mayor be willing to address some basic issues of ethics?
How about beginning with independent counsel to advise the ethics commission? That was the case when the ethics ordinance was adopted. The original counsel was a retired female superior court judge who lived in Black Rock.
Tom, the whole city system has fallen apart and is not serving its citizens. The council votes on appointments it knows nothing about. Why? Because Finch, Wood or Nunn told them to. There is no leadership on the council. McCarthy is a Finch piss boy who needs to do whatever to keep his city job plus Tom is a member of the city’s NBA club. For those who don’t know, that’s the city’s No Balls At All club.
The people of Bridgeport get no help and no news from the local Mary Poppins newspaper aka CT Post. They don’t even publish a story about corruption after obtaining all the material.
We have a BOE that is colorblind, they think only black teachers can teach black children. I will ask them how’s that working out at Dunbar. I could go on and on, But …
Ron Mackey, I am writing this to you. It is time for blacks and Hispanics to stop whoring themselves out to all people in power. For years and years politicians have used your vote and what has it brought you? Nothing.
People say Mr. Allen paid his dues and is in with his pastor, BFD. You see he did the crime he did the time but the one place he should not be working is with kids no matter what.
Let’s get this straight, I want the best teaching the kids of Bridgeport, I don’t want them teaching because they are black, white, yellow or purple just to make the numbers right.
Dunbar school was operated by blacks before the shit hit the fan and there were 800 kids there. We now have 300-plus kids and no matter what is said it’s a cluster fuck. It’s time for the minority community to push their youngest and brightest to the front and get rid of these born-again, I love my pastor, charlatans. The black kids need role models not phonies teaching them.
OK Pete, et al., I said in the past Sharpe was not a good choice to run a BPT school. It would seem this Allen guy is not a good choice either. I personally would not pick either guy to be on an ethics commission if the choice were up to me. The part of the story that concerns me is how did these guys end up involved with the BOE? It would seem you have picked and chosen what parts of the story to concentrate on. Did you guys read this paragraph?
The record of Mack Allen, 49, of Bridgeport, surfaced in a confidential background check that FUSE had a law firm perform in January after he had begun working. But the organization didn’t inform Bridgeport schools Supt. Frances Rabinowitz about it until Tuesday night, after she requested background information on several FUSE employees as part of an audit.
It would seem all the BOE had to do is request the information. It would seem although they did do a state background check, all the city had to do is request the info. Neither did that. All they had to do was ask. It is that simple. It would seem to me neither group really wanted to know. Any negative connotation that falls on the mayor, and he deserves every bit of it, also falls on the BOE. They are both in the same boat, two sides of the same coin, birds of a feather. The one saving grace for the mayor, at least he did a little background checking even though Allen was highly recommended by his pastor. The BOE did none. The state recommended this group and the BOE ran with it. Literally, no questions asked. Even if you support one group and dismiss the other, you can’t be totally blinded by your allegiance. How do you not see this? One thing you have to admire the mayor for, as Fran tries to sidestep this bullet, Finch could care less. Second only to the Toronto mayor, Finch could care less about what you guys think. The guy is either not that bright or he has stones the size of Mount Rushmore. He is going to do what he is going to do and if you don’t like it, go screw yourself. It makes me glad I did not vote for him.
BTW–Be careful because going and screwing yourself will put you on the sex registry in TX but not CT unless you are doing it in sight of children.
Now BOE, how is it an attorney in Hartford can use the National Crime database to look up an employee for a third party BUT the BPD cannot use the same for the same individual? Something doesn’t wash here and I believe that would be someone’s dirty laundry.
Bob, the Hartford law firm (Crumbie) was the third party in this case. Third parties cannot search via NCIC. Could it be one of Crumbie’s friends at the FBI bent the rules? Isn’t it a federal offense to do that? He worked at the FBI, maybe he has a password.
If that is a rule that limits BPT PD from doing background checks, that is stupid. These checks would miss someone who has legal issues but not in CT. I can see why Google checks are not allowed because they are a little shady. The article does admit the checking they are allowed to do can miss things.
I speak for myself, a member of the 132nd district TC. To Patricia Swain and Bob Halstead, I hope you don’t attempt another term representing the 132nd district on the City Council. I will ensure the voters of this district are aware of both your voting records, especially the one where you supported a sex offender to serve on the Ethics Committee. You are both a disgrace to those who served this district before the two of you. If you do your due diligence, there is a way to redeem yourselves, but I doubt the two of you have the ability to seek out the procedure. “I didn’t know” is not going to fly.
You are saying you need to focus on sensationalized issues to win your vote. How pathetic. Why don’t you focus on real issues like crippling taxes and corruption that affect more children than what you’re trying to blow up.
The former council people are no big winners. Olson is passable, but Brantley is an immature, spiteful, shameful representative. I like Halstead and Swain. They are not solely to blame for this travesty. However, if you are looking for better representation, please don’t recycle! Let’s move on!
Lisa, you absolutely speak only for yourself. Your aforementioned comments and bullying are why the 132nd voted as they did.
Come on, BOE SPY. Ain’t no spin you can put on this story, it is out of control.
The Courant reports a Hartford attorney did a background check at FUSE’s direction but Finch said in February he had no idea he worked for FUSE. Did this guy lie on his application for the ETHICS Commission? That’s pretty low.
Did he knowingly withhold information to the council about where he worked?
The form for the appointment to a board or commission is supposed to be sworn to and notarized. Was it?
I’m sorry. BOE SPY thinks I should be asking these questions to Fran Rabinowitz. He thinks she is running the city now.
Anyone But Finch I guess is what BOE SPY is really trying to say.
Bob, I do not know how you get that from my comment, but OK. You think Finch runs BPT. How cute. You probably think the BOE runs the schools. I mean they do when the CEA lets them but that is not too often.
No, the state pretty much bribed the city with more funding to let FUSE run Dunbar. But again let’s ignore the facts.
Bob–that money went to the BOE, not the city. Who was bribed?
BOE,
According to Mayor Rabinowitz the MOU said the BOE was responsible for background check on certified positions and FUSE for the dozen or so noncertified staff.
The BOE did their job, FUSE did not.
Maybe you should consider another line of work because for a spy you seem to get a lot of bad recon. Who are your sources???
Fuse did a background check finding the drug arrest and sex offender registry. FUSE interpreted this information as they saw fit. The city did a check and found the drug arrest. The city interpreted this information as they saw fit. The BOE did what? Finding what? How, exactly, do you see this as doing their job?
Andrew Fardy, blacks are going through the same process other groups have done when trying to get involved. The Democratic Party is the only game in town in Bridgeport and the ten district leaders and the Democratic Town Committee Chairman rule the party so if you’re a hard-working educated religious person with a family who is honest and wants to make changes and get involved in politics, you will find it hard to do. A black person who is new to running only has a chance to win if they run in the 135th district and the 139th district and they would have a hard time beating the current person in that office because of the district leader and the DTC Chairman unless they kiss the ring of those in power. Outsiders have very little chance to win unless they have money and a following and the issues on their side.
Ron, six of the candidates for the TC in the 138th were new to the area and they won 5 of 9 seats. They would have won all 9 except for MP. It can be done.
Allen resigned, gone goodbye. Wonder who whispered in his ear?
Bet the dumb voters of our not beloved city would vote a druggy sex pervert into the mayor’s chair, Allen should have ridden out the storm like they all do.
Thank you BPT REBEL for scooping OIB on the resignation news. Lennie may have started the holiday a little early.
You are welcome, sir.
It’s not a storm–it’s a fire.
All one needs are nine fingers to count the number of things to know about background checks. From the look of things down here in Bridgeport, I should put my guillotine to good use and help out the folks conducting background checks:
www .praesidiuminc.com/backgroundcheck/nine_things_you_need_to_know_about_background_checks.pdf
“But OIA is not allowed to conduct a federal background on any board or commission candidates. National Crime Information Center standards do not allow the OIA to conduct a nationwide check on persons appointed to boards or commissions. If an appointee does not disclose their entire criminal history, background checks that are allowed to be conducted by the OIA will not catch said offenses.”
I find it hard to believe that “National Crime Information Center standards do not allow the OIA to conduct a nationwide check on persons appointed to boards or commissions.” Sound like something the City Attorney’s Office would say to Lt. Rebecca Garcia.
Board and commission members serve on a volunteer basis and are not city employees. Is this the city’s reasoning? NCIC standards allow nonprofits for example to conduct background checks on volunteers at no charge. It was my understanding as a City Council member, board and commission appointees had to agree to a background check. While NCIC is not a foolproof way to conduct a background check, it is the best method as all states provide criminal information to the FBI. NCIC background checks can not be conducted by just anyone and basically, only law enforcement agencies have access to the database. There are limited occasions when an NCIC background check can be conducted: When one is pulled over for a traffic violation; under investigation by law enforcement authorities; detained/arrested and before allowed to get out on bail or PTA; Request a background check for self; Seeking employment or volunteer service (signed permission required/waiver of some rights). Obviously, a person seeking an opportunity to serve on a board or commission understands a background check is required and he or she must sign a background check form. He or she waives ‘most’ rights (right to privacy in a limited form). However, everyone is protected from discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (title VII I believe) whether the background check is for serving on a board or commission, volunteer work, and especially for employment purposes. A good way to lose protection under title VII is to lie or withhold information. If Allen did provide all relevant information when applying for the commission post–including the sex offender registry–it doesn’t mean the city could flat-out reject his appointment and he could seek protection under title VII. However, in the application for the job with FUSE (considering he didn’t lie or withhold information), he could be rejected and would most likely not be protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under title VII. The answer is simple: The protection of children comes first and it exposes the employer to a potential liability.
Lt. Rebecca Garcia is a very smart, hard-working and committed police officer. All police officers of the Bridgeport Police Department MUST agree to a full background check, random drug testing, psychological examination, and all the necessary training. They are held to the highest standards imaginable.
“National Crime Information Center standards do not allow the OIA to conduct a nationwide check on persons appointed to boards or commissions.”
Among the many boards and commissions in the City of Bridgeport, there is one that you (Lt. Garcia) are very familiar with–The Bridgeport Police Commission. As the person in charge of OIA, you and your staff investigate officers and send reports to the Police Commission that stands in judgment of police officers. How could a police officer know they aren’t being judged by someone who is wanted in some other state; has a criminal record (shot a cop); has a record of incidents showing a dislike of law enforcement officers? Shouldn’t Police Commission appointees demonstrate they have lived by good moral and ethical standards before being appointed? Does any of this sounds like it’s moral, ethical, fair or legal?
All the mayor had to do in the interview was ask the question of “is there anything else we need to know about you that you haven’t told us?” Case closed.
Joel, I don’t know where you get your information on NCIC but it’s wrong. Background checks can be done by authorized police officers. There is no question about why searches are being done that pertain to boards and commissions. Sounds like someone does not want to do the job or is being told not to do her job.
Where did I write background checks can’t be done or conducted by police officers? Feel free to provide any corrections. It doesn’t have to be a police officer, other people with permission and approved access to the NCIC database can conduct a background check. Detention Officers (jailers) like the ones working in booking are authorized/mandated to conduct a full background check on all prisoners when they are processed (fingerprinted, photographed). Prisoners cannot be released on bond or PTA until they are cleared by NCIC. Did you read the nine things you need to know? Put a firefighter ax to a finger and start counting to nine. 🙂
www .praesidiuminc.com/backgroundcheck/nine_things_you_need_to_know_about_background_checks.pdf
Here is another tidbit, when you put a name in and indicate a criminal check is wanted, it (NCIC) doesn’t ask why. Someone with authorization could get all the information available on an individual by using NCIC. Anyone says anything different is lying.
Joel, you are shilling for the company advertised in your attachment. That’s pure bullshit. That makes you full of shit also. Wow.
Wow, was that really necessary? Talking about shit, this is the type of shit that got you in a jam with Maria Pereira. Keep it up and don’t be surprised to find me with Maria campaigning against you. I still like you, Andy. 😉
Joe, I don’t care who you work for. I am not running for anything and neither is my wife. So take your support and shove it. I have no comment on MP at this time.
That’s too long to read on a July 4th.
Joel,
Let’s keep pulling on this thread and see how much more unravels.
I read what you posted and it says “if an appointee does not disclose their entire criminal history, background checks that are allowed to be conducted by OIA will not catch said offenses.”
So if you don’t tell us everything we won’t find it. What kind of check is that???
Please. Stop the nonsense. Stop the lies.
Are we to believe the same is true of a candidate for the Police Department? If they don’t report everything, chances are a background check won’t necessarily find anything? BS.
Additionally, members of the Police Commission and the Fire Commission serve and have fiduciary responsibilities to their pension funds. So is Lt. Garcia suggesting she cannot use the NCIC database to do background checks on individuals with this level of financial responsibility? BS.
What’s next, background checks on OIB bloggers?
I think they are doing that already.
With all of your living, get learning. I respect Mack Allen personally for stepping out of the circles at this time and humbly sharing history with the community. Lots of info provided in the three days of discussion. My personal takeaways are:
1) What questions are asked of applicants for work or Board appointments? Are the questions specific enough to uncover all issues of personal history that may be of concern, assuming the questions are answered honestly and fully?
2) Please confirm the process used in the City today to review above applications, an applicant authorization to pursue background info, fingerprint data and the time it takes Police Office of Internal Affairs to process such a request routinely. If OIA is limited to only CT state records, is that limited standard true for all searches?
3) What guidelines, if any, have been used by Miscellaneous Matters to review applications (assuming the info is correct and complete) that show sex, drug, or violent activities in a person’s background? What outside resources, if any, are available to them in coming to an answer other than that of the City Attorney’s office?
4) I operate under the assumption limited training has been offered to members of City Boards and Commissions in the past, perhaps limited to Ethics. I have been led to assume formal and regular evaluations of member behavior is a missing part of City process. If this is our current state of affairs, why do Council members allow this to continue?
5) What standards of behavior and personal history does the community (and the following parties) expect the City, the Board of Education and service programs of all types to uphold relative to people working or volunteering with Bridgeport preschool youth, K-8 youth, and high school age attendees? Maybe each will talk about where they are today and reasonable discussion can get us closer to being where we need to be. Time will tell.
Recently, many people on this site who condemned Musto for releasing pictures of the Newtown shooting were backpedaling once they had some time to further consider the issue and had more information. I understand a lot of the fun of blogosphere justice is jumping off half-cocked but do we ever learn a lesson?
Let me offer this hypothetical example, a figment of my imagination. Take it as such. A group of teens choose to go to their local school on a Saturday night to play ball. As with any gathering of young people they are loud and visible. A neighbor calls this disturbance into the police. When the cops arrive they see two tired, sweaty, Gatorade-fueled teens urinating on the school. Both are arrested. One teen 17 years and 364 days old is released as a minor. The other, 18 years and one day old is charged as an adult with vandalism and public indecency at a school in front of a minor. In order to show the effectiveness of their shiny, new offender registry the boy is listed as a sex offender. Ten years later he is working for the BOE. Does anyone have a problem with this knowing all the facts and the nature of the crime?
BOE making up lies again. Who besides Steve Auerbach backpedaled on their assessments of Musto’s insensitive voyeuristic vote on releasing photos of massacred children? WHO? NO ONE, THAT’S WHO!!! BUT ONCE AGAIN BOE LIES IN DEFENSE OF HIS INDEFENSIBLE STATEMENTS. Pathetic individual.
BOE, you are full of shit. The boy would not be branded as a sex offender for having his johnson out while taking a pee. Making that analogy to Musto and the Newtown photos is pure and utter bullshit. You must be a very lonely women. If you continue to bring the Newtown kids up, I will not be happy and that’s not a good thing.
That was a plot from a movie. I wanted to illustrate a point about not having a complete understanding of the crime and what I see as a problem with the sex offender list. Search your neighborhood for local sex offenders. I would want to know about truly dangerous people. Not someone who flashed a crowd and a kid happened to be in the crowd. Again, why wasn’t he on the list in CT? Does anyone know? I am going to guess whatever he did was a crime in CA and TX but not CT.
I have searched my neighborhood’s sex offender list as I have four granddaughters. The sex crimes listed are valid. Listen you dipshit, a man waves his johnson at a bunch of kids, that’s a sex crime, got it? If it’s near my grandkids it’s a capital punishment crime. You don’t think the guy who flashed a crowd and it’s not a college prank is someone who at some time will commit a sex crime? You really need to come into the real world. This is a tough, non-forgiving world.
A college kid who flashed a crowd with kids in the crowd would get the same punishment (indecent exposure and something about minors) as the perv you speak of. It is the same law and the same crime. College kids who burn up their dorm furniture are charged with arson. You dipshit.
And why is this relevant to the unfortunate case of Elder Mack Allen, BOE SPY?
You have the audacity to call anyone a “dipshit?” Have you looked in the mirror or on the wall in your temporary housing provided by Mr. Sackler?
To show being on the sex offender registry does not necessarily mean what Andy thinks it does. Recently, two 15-year-olds got put in the registry for ‘sexting’ each other. Since both sent sexually explicit texts and pictures to each other, both were guilty of sending sexually explicit messages to a minor (the other kid was a minor) and distribution of child pornography (pictures of themselves). I see this as a problem. I, having a kid, would want to know about realistically dangerous people who live nearby. The list is so polluted with people who are on it for stupid reasons, it is next to useless.
www .nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/sex-offender-registry-under-debate.html
Once again you are upset that I called Andy a dipshit but when Andy did the same to me you give him a ‘BOE walk.’ Do you often have two sets rules people should follow? One for the people you support and one for the people you don’t.
BOE SPY, on July 4, 2014 you got your ass kicked on OIB. Now you want to change the subject to Musto for releasing pictures of the Newtown kids. Maria Pereira, Bob Walsh, Peter Spain and Andy Fardy all have set you straight and have caused you to run for cover, your talking points are weak and whoever is paying you must be upset with your performance.
Ron, my talking point was simply you crucify Finch for bringing this guy to BPT but the BOE gets a walk, we really do not know why he was on the sex offender registry in TX and CA but not CT and the city was the only group that did any checking on this guy. You can believe as you wish. The only truth we have come to is my kids still have to go to private school and I can’t sell my house. If we get a good lightning storm, maybe I can ‘sell’ it to the insurance company. Thanks a lot for that. Congrats for making BPT a better place. At least we are still getting new charter schools. That should help. BTW–will you be voting for Finch again?
This topic broke 100 comments. That is more than the number of people who will vote next month.
But you, BOE SPY, wrote here on OIB the other day you were against charter schools and teachers’ tenure. What, have you had a change of heart? You should really follow your ConnCAN script a bit more closely, especially when you are charging double time, for digging your hole so deeply on a national holiday.
I support charter schools as an option. That is an option I would choose for my kids. I am against teacher tenure. A judge in California recently concluded California’s union-backed teacher tenure, layoff and dismissal laws infringe on students’ rights to an equal public education.
www .foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/judge-rules-california-teacher-tenure-laws-unconstitutional/
When did I say I am against charters? Please, refresh my memory.
SPY, teacher tenure laws guarantee due process, not employment. I have never been a member of a union and have been in management positions for the vast majority of my adult life. The only unionized environment I ever worked in was in Manhattan. In fact, I was served a complaint by a shop steward in front of several of my employees.
I was hired to make significant changes, increase sales and profitability, train, evaluate and interview/hire new employees as needed. I quickly realized I had several employees who were not committed to or interested in fulfilling the responsibilities of their positions.
I met with HR and I was informed of all the procedures and policies regarding the dismissal of employees. I crossed every T and dotted every I and I was able to terminate every single employee who was not performing.
The moral of the story is tenure or being a member of a union doesn’t mean you are guaranteed employment. It simply means there is a defined process to commence disciplinary action up to and including termination.
There is not a single teacher in the United States who cannot be terminated. The problem lies with principals/administrators who do not want to take the steps required to successfully terminate an underperforming teacher.
By establishing specific steps that must be taken to terminate a teacher, it helps to ensure teachers are not targeted for political activity, challenging a principal/administrator, retaliation, etc.
As someone who has been in management for over 20 years, I believe organized labor and unions are crucial in protecting the middle class and the poor. A CT teacher receives tenure after four years of service. If a principal has allowed an ineffective teacher to earn tenure, isn’t that a poor reflection on the administrator/principal?
BOE SPY // Jun 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm
…
“I have a solution to our education problem. That solution is teacher accountability, an end to tenure and charter schools.”
I thought you didn’t understand why I kept my identity secret.
“It helps to ensures teachers are not targeted for political activity, challenging a principal/administrator, retaliation, etc.”
I see. My comment was unclear.
“I have a solution to our education problem.”
You thought that an end to tenure and charter schools meant ‘an end to teacher tenure and an end to charter schools.’ It is like pronoun uncertainty. That statement should have read: “That solution is teacher accountability, charter schools and an end to tenure.’
I just wanted to add if an administrator or principal ever complains about a specific teacher’s performance, ask them if they have been taking the necessary steps by documenting the poor performance on a consistent basis. Principals are the highly compensated leaders in their buildings, not teachers. If a school has several ineffective teachers and you have a principal who has been in that school for 2-3 years, that is a reflection on the leadership.
According to this, no teachers have been fired. Is that because they are that good or is there a problem with the system? Does 100% of the blame for this fall on the administration? Even though all those administrators are fully educated (MA in public administration) and accredited by the state to hold a position as high as superintendent.
www .teachersunionexposed.com/state.cfm?state=CT
SPY, thank you for this link; however I have already seen this questionable article. I can state unequivocally during my tenure on the BBOE, there were teachers who were both untenured and tenured who left this district because they knew they really had no choice but to do so. A poor-performing teacher is counseled out through repeated documentation of poor performance, therefore they are able to see the writing on the wall. Many teachers choose to resign before they are formally terminated. There are poor/bad employees in every single profession, not just teaching. I honestly believe if there is a school with several poor-performing teachers, it is a reflection on the principals who are earning between $130,000-$160,000 per year. The role of any supervisor is to inspire their staff to be great and if an employee doesn’t want to fulfill their job responsibilities, it is the supervisor’s responsibility to do theirs.
By your comment ‘there were teachers who were both un-tenured and tenured who left this district because they knew they really had no choice but to do so.’ You would agree the tenure rules make firing a teacher virtually impossible since the only option the BOE has is to ‘chase them off.’ What would happen if a teacher would not leave? Either nothing would happen or no teacher has ever failed to be chased off, since none have ever been fired.
Your story of Manhattan union involvement was interesting. While you were working at that company, was there a clear line of supervision and a separation of responsibilities? The BBOE does not have this. Their lines of leadership are currently quite blurred. You would have the teachers and the CEA, above them are the principals, then the Super. At the top you have the board, made up of WPF members who were backed by the CEA. This is why your past union experiences do not reflect problems in the BPS. In this situation, the CEA is at the bottom and top of the system. In effect the teachers choose their supervisors or simply supervise themselves.