Superior Court Judge Salvatore Agati today ordered a special election for four Board of Education seats September 4, the date after Labor Day. Agati set the date per order of the Connecticut Supreme Court as part of its ruling overturning state control of city schools.
The judge’s decision now sets in order a process for major parties to endorse candidates, potential primaries and then the general election. Based on an election calendar set by the Connecticut Secretary of the State’s Office, party primaries would take place July 10. Four members of the reconfigured school board, Hernan Illingworth, Jacqueline Kelleher, Kenneth Moales and Michelle Black Smith-Tompkins, all reside in Bridgeport and could run for elected seats. Moales and Illingworth have already indicated they are interested in running. Candidates endorsed by minor parties such as Connecticut’s Working Families Party, as well as petitioning candidates could also appear on the special general election ballot Sept. 4. The state-appointed school board will remain in place until results of the special election are certified.
Judge Agati’s order today:
The Supreme Court remanded this case and the consolidated cases captioned Pereira v. State Board of Education (X06 CV 11 6010994 S) and Farrar-James v. State Board of Education (X06 CV 11 6011014 S) with direction to order a special election for the vacant seats on the Bridgeport Board of Education (local board). Specifically, this court was directed by the Supreme Court to (1) order the election pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 9-164(b); (2) set all applicable dates under the statute; and (3) schedule the election no later than 150 days from the date of the order for the election. The special election will include all four seats that would have been filled on the basis of voting in the 2011 Bridgeport municipal elections.
This court on April 13, 2012 heard and received evidence about available dates to hold this special election. The court had solicited assistance from the Connecticut Secretary of State’s office in order that the court would comply with the requirements imposed by General Statutes § 9-164(b) to include dates for party endorsements and primary elections. The court did hear evidence from Attorney Ted Bromley of the Secretary of State’s office and received as evidence special election calendars prepared by the Secretary of State’s office with suggested dates for an election to take place. Four election dates were provided that would comply with General Statutes § 9-164(b) and the Supreme Court’s direction. Those dates are August 21, 2012; August 28, 2012; September 4, 2012; and September 11, 2012.
The court also heard from Linda Grace in her capacity as the Republican Registrar of Voters for the city of Bridgeport. Her testimony focused on logistical problems that would accompany the available election dates. The main concern of this witness rests with the fact that on August 14, 2012, a state primary election for state offices is scheduled to take place. Pursuant to General Statutes § 9-447, the voting tabulators must remain locked for fourteen days after a primary election in order to preserve any candidate’s right to contest an election. The remaining concerns raised by the witness related to staffing/manpower issues.
Although there may be logistical issues with any one of the four dates from which the court may choose, the court is restricted in its choice by the requirements of General Statutes § 9-164(b).
The court orders the following:
(1) The election for the four positions on the Bridgeport Board of Education shall take place on Tuesday, September 4, 2012. The Democratic and Republican Registrars of Voters shall follow the special election calendar from the Secretary of State that was marked and admitted into evidence at the April 13, 2012 hearing as defendants’ exhibit C, which includes dates for party endorsements and primary elections; (2) By stipulation of all parties present and of record at the April 13, 2012 hearing, the polling places for the September 4, 2012 election shall be the same polling places that will be used for the August 14, 2012 state primary election; (3) Until the final certification of the special election results is completed, the seven current members of the reconstituted board shall remain in office; and (4) Counsel for the Republican and Democratic Registrars of Voters shall notify the court when final certification of the special election results is completed.
“Time will tell” is a way I have closed my comments for many months now. So the Court ordered September 4, 2012 Special Election for BOE frames the saga organized by our ACCOUNTABLE Mayor William Finch with plans for educational improvements in Bridgeport.
The new Board has seen the passing of the highest 2011 City taxpaid employee, John Ramos, and the entry of Paul Vallas and team with rapid, reaching deep, reform and outreach for partnering, finances and accountability. A 2012 budget has been passed and a June 2012 balanced budget result has been promised. The 2013 budget is part of the Finch/Sherwood package working its way through the B&A process. It requires $7 Million of new money as well as continuation of currently agreed-to linkages of City departments assisting in their areas of expertise with personnel, etc. (For budget watchers it is critical to look at those areas that interface with the Education Department to see the linkages are in place, understood and are functioning effectively. Such City ‘cooperation’ in the past has brought on accusations, “the blame game” and frustration. Too early to tell at this point. A scorecard pointing out all the transferred duties and responsibilities, who coordinates each effort, and whatever timelines for responsibilities and expectations have been established. Anybody see anything like that yet???
Maybe the Charter Revision Commission focus is not necessary? Was the only thing we needed in the City an educational leader with an understanding of how to cut confusion and stagnation while addressing the serious achievement gap in education results?
Maybe an election will have folks looking at school goals and the kids? Maybe it will get parents to the polls? Maybe the Charter Revision Commission (or the City Council) might consider another source of revenue for the City of Bridgeport:
Registered Non-Voter Fine: $100 due to City of Bridgeport if you are registered but do not vote. (Parking fines are $35, littering fines are $161.) You can choose to unregister if you value your right to vote so minimally. Otherwise, inform yourself (with more than a palm card on election day) and go to the polls or use the absentee path.
Lots of ideas bubbling up in the City. Talk to the City Council members. They have several upcoming important votes. Time will tell.
JML,
You give too much credit to Vallas. Do not forget for a minute he is firmly entrenched with Fabrizi, Testa and Timpanelli. All three of these guys have been at the helm of the sinking ship we call home for too many years. Vallas spends more time in Testa’s kitchen then he does in his office.
BTW. You seem to have gotten the message. Your message is now readable and comprehensible. I hope you keep it up. If you find you are having difficulty, let me know. I will try to find a 12-Step Program that will help you keep on track.
Your message is important. Make sure you keep reaching those who need to hear it.
yahooy,
BTW, the comments above are close to 500 words and you are saying I am now readable etc. Is it possible you are now able to read 500-word statements at a single sitting, jump tall buildings with but one leap, and reach out to find varied 12-Step Programs for those you really care about?
Let’s consider Paul Vallas for a moment. Is he here permanently? Does he go home every weekend? What does he do in his spare time? Whom has he met in the community? Where will he eat and relax? Why don’t you meet the guy, ask him out for coffee (or a beer). First you might want to read up on what he has done that is positive to past communities (in the face of significant challenges of all kinds) to create some background knowledge. Maybe he is looking for some diversity? I think you revealed to us your spouse is or was in education working with literacy? Bet he has some thoughts on that subject for Bridgeport based on my meetings.
What are the grounds for using the terms “firmly entrenched” relative to T.T.& F.? Don’t we give more credit to State of CT education officials or certain Fairfield County hedge fund entrepreneurs? So, ask him to go out to the Merritt Canteen, Tomlinson’s or even to Fairfield for a Rawley’s dog. He is a high-energy guy who is easy to meet and talk with. Try it out. Give us a report. Time will tell.
*** Is a “Special Election” similar to a “Special Olympics” event? ***
I think Mr. Vallas is the real deal. I do not agree with the way he got here but he is here and the Bridgeport children have a superstar in their corner. I want him to succeed by using all of the national connections he has to help Bridgeport’s children.
Now, as for this September election, there must be four qualified Bridgeport residents identified to run. Some, not all, of the city residents on the appointed board would be terrific candidates since they have been trained and will provide essential continuity. If the town committees do not respond favorably then there’d better be a primary with a force of nature to make sure the best are elected. Yeah I know some will say it can’t happen. Well it must happen for the sake of the children. Vallas needs a board that can act like a real board. We need four candidates, the best of the best.
Are the candidates to be four Democrats; four Republicans; unaffiliated or a mix? Could someone clarify?
The best argument against the proposed charter revision is the election of four quality board members in September.
I’m just disgusted with the process in general … scheduling a special election the day after a holiday weekend? Bridgeport already has the lowest vote turnout in the state–even on the regularly scheduled election day–let alone a special election–never mind a special election following a holiday. It’s beyond ridiculous. Good luck to any candidates trying to get the word out–motivate volunteers–rally people–get them to the polls.
If the court really wanted to encourage civic participation in this election, it would have allowed at least another week post holiday for the candidates to shake the trees, get people focused and get them to the polls. And by “get people to the polls”–I don’t meant the ones paid to vote by the DTC.
Stop the insanity!