Quorum? Special Meetings Of School Board Scheduled

Ganim, Fonseca
Ganim, left, swears in Rafael Fonseca as member of the Board of Education.

Special meetings of the Board of Education are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday to consider a high school field trip and pending litigation matter respectively three weeks after four school board members announced a boycott of meetings demanding the resignation of Maria Pereira who isn’t going anywhere and urged the four to resume their duties. The next regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting is set for October 11. A quorum requires five in attendance. The newest board member Rafael Fonseca, appointed by Mayor Joe Ganim to fill a vacancy, says he will attend meetings.

Will a quorum force no-show board members to attend meetings?

On September 12 members Dennis Bradley, Joe Larcheveque, Kevin McSpirit and Annette Segarra-Negron announced “we as a group have agreed that we will no longer regularly attend Board of Education meetings until such time as Ms. Pereira resigns her position,” charging dysfunction on the board and “harassment” by Pereira who recently filed a lawsuit in Superior Court challenging Ganim’s authority to appoint Segarra-Negron to fill the vacancy of Dave Hennessey.

Fonseca ran successfully with Pereira in an Upper East Side Democratic Town Committee slate last March that won all nine seats. Shortly after they had a falling out. Ganim’s appointment of Fonseca could force the boycotters to reverse themselves. Pereira is part of a coalition including Ben Walker, Sauda Baraka and Howard Gardner that generally vote in a bloc on key issues, so they certainly would maintain control if the others stay away. If they show up Fonseca could emerge as a swing vote.

Although politically aligned with Bradley in the past, Ganim wonders if the board chair’s push for a boycott is strategically flawed. Community interests have stepped up urging Ganim to use his public prestige to urge a quorum. Pereira, a lightning rod on the board, will not resign, and if anything she is digging her heels in harder castigating the four no-shows for abdicating their responsibilities.

What is the endgame for the boycotters? If they continue to stay away they look irresponsible. If they return to meetings they look weak.

See Tuesday agenda here. Wednesday agenda here.

0
Share

43 comments

  1. Who called the meeting? Who set the agenda? The board Secretary? Are those the rules of the board? Kind of weird if you ask me.
    But OK. Assuming the power of the chair passes down to the Secretary, the meeting begins but Joe Larcheveque becomes the acting chair if Bradley isn’t there?
    Sounds like more chaos and dysfunction to me.

    0
    1. I give Fonseca credit for stating he will not be part of the boycott. Plain and simple. I don’t care what kind of backroom deals were discussed, I don’t care about the “why” of his being selected, he will constitute a quorum and to me that’s all that matters. As to the boycotters, they are weak, what do they care how they look if they return? And for those naysayers, something in this old mind is telling me Fonseca may turn out to be a surprise. He has to do his homework on issues, then vote accordingly. Easy, breezy!!! I’ve never met this man, but like my dear friend Hector, I wish him well, and hope he has an independent gene!

      0
          1. Even this five-member Quorum Board is tenuous. If there is any bickering amongst the five, there will be further splitting and splintering. If one member of the five does not show up for whatever reason, the quorum disappears and no meeting can go forward. This five-member Quorum Board will also be affected by the Bellis decision. If Bellis rules against mayoral appointees to the BOE, that will affect Fonseca and we are back to square one (deciding if the Hennessey replacement should be a Dem or a Rep). If Bellis rules the mayoral appointees are legal, we are back to where we are today; a five-member Quorum Board that requires all members to be present for meetings to go forward and a resolution of the Bradley boycott.

            0
          2. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. Would this five-member Quorum Board be limited in power due to the effect of the boycott on subcommittees? Reading about the BOE over these last couple of weeks, my understanding is that subcommittees make decisions in areas they are responsible for, the subcommittee chair puts the decision on to the agenda of the full Board and a final vote is then taken. With the boycotters, I would assume quorums on subcommittees are affected and nothing can happen concerning those areas the non-functioning subcommittees are responsible for. If my assumptions are correct, the Bradley boycott would have to be resolved to resume full functioning of the BOE. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

            0
          3. If the full board is meeting the committees can be circumvented but it lengthens the full board meetings because instead of working out the details and specifics in committee that work will have to be done at full board meetings.

            That is not ideal. There are three committees where we would have a quorum but Larcheveque chairs one of those committees.

            0
          1. Bylaws of the Board
            Board Member Vacancies
            Any vacancy occurring on the board of education from whatever cause shall be filled by a vote of the remaining members of the board. The person appointed shall be of the same political party as his/her predecessor. Vacancies occurring shall be filled according to the Charter of the City of Bridgeport and in compliance with State Statutes.
            The vacancy will be filled by majority vote of all members of the board of education at a regularly scheduled meeting, and the action shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.
            The person appointed shall serve until the next regular municipal election for such seat, at which time a successor shall be elected or appointed for the unexpired portion of the term.
            In the event that the vacancy occurs within a State appointed Board, the State Commissioner of Education will appoint the person to fill the vacancy.
            Legal Reference: Connecticut General Statutes
            9-204 Minority representation on boards of education
            10-219 Procedure for filling vacancy on board of education
            10-156e Employees of boards of education permitted to serve as elected officials; exception
            10-232 Restriction on employment of members of the board of education
            10-223e Reconstitution of schools and boards of education
            Charter of the City of Bridgeport

            0
    2. Bradley calls special meetings. Any three members can also call a special meeting.

      The student trip is being funded by a federal grant that has an expiration on it.

      The second is a proposed settlement on a lawsuit, which is time sensitive.

      0
  2. Even if everyone shows up, what will get accomplished? The animosity will boil over quickly and they will be right where they were a few weeks ago, Pereira and Bradley arguing back and forth .Sick of it all at this point, time for the state to take over once and for all. It’s inevitable that will be the end result, let’s just get it over with sooner than later.

    0
    1. A state takeover? Why? Because they are doing so well with running the state?

      Only a fool would willingly cede their voting rights.

      The public view of the BBoE is myopic at best. Look around the state. You will find similar problems with supposedly dysfunctional Boards of Ed as close as Fairfield, where the animosity has caused them to abandon committee work. Look at New Milford where the board/Superintendent relations are so contentious they hired a professional mediation firm to help solve their problems. After a short time, the firm backed out, inviting the board to call once communication had somewhat improved. Oh, they also handed the board a bill for somewhere in the neighborhood of $900. And let’s not overlook Greenwich, where they are on their eighth (I believe this is correct) Superintendent (counting interims) in the last sixteen years. None of these citizens would ever utter the words “state takeover,” much less hope for one.

      Why would anyone wish for a state takeover? That’s what quitters do. We have some dedicated, hard-working members on the BBoE who are there to do the work necessary to help the children of Bridgeport. We are not quitters (in spite of what Fardy would like for us to be) and will oppose any effort to call for a state takeover!

      0
      1. Ben, don’t forget New Haven. The “deformers” are describing NH’s BOE as “dysfunctional” because there are two newly elected BOE members who are asking questions and holding the superintendent accountable.

        0
    2. Mr. Harvey Weintraub, if Bradley does show up and decides to run the meeting per the rules and regulations and not think he is the king then the meeting will run smoothly. It’s that simple.

      And your idea of the state taking over and stripping the people of their right to vote for representation is WRONG. Thank God you’re not on the BOE.

      0
  3. I think you are absolutely correct Lisa and I also think Dennis Bradley, Joe Larcheveque, Kevin McSpirit and Annette Segarra-Negron will all be back because Joe told them to. Joe can put up with a lot of things, but certainly not having people think or believe he is weak and ineffectual and those boycotting members will do what he says.

    I think for the boycotting members doing what’s best for the children of Bridgeport is secondary and doing what’s best for Joe is their primary mission and Joe can look like Mr. Big Stuff for getting them back into the BBOE meetings.

    0
    1. Donald, Joe didn’t get them back. He lost control which is why he appointed Fonseca, he had to insure there will be a quorum. What does it matter? This was clearly a move gone bad, the fix was not only necessary for Joe to show some semblance of leadership, but to keep the masses from going after him next. My hope is Foncesca surprises all of them and does a good job.

      0
  4. It’s not an either/or. They already look weak and irresponsible whether or not they return. The only way to save face and show integrity would be to resign. Otherwise a return makes it look like they walked for political reasons and to protect Rabinowitz’ position. A continued boycott does nothing because Maria Pereira is not likely to be going anywhere anytime soon.

    0
    1. The only one who could resign without changing the status quo and save face would be Negron. As a Republican, she has nothing politically to lose, as a Ganim appointee rather than an elected member she’s legally controversial anyway, and her cover is she was being used, which has the further cachet of being the truth. And she can avoid all the court time and effort.

      If she doesn’t have a political rabbi (likely), maybe she can get someone in the RTC to help her craft an effective resignation statement.

      0
      1. Yet that still leaves Bradley et al. with the same conundrum. Come back and show the boycott was not about Pereira or stay out and maintain the boycott for a moral stance. Maintaining the boycott in effect has the same effect as a resignation. In fact it may streamline and fast track business.

        0
      2. Booty, my read is Negron was used, but didn’t realize it. Her intentions could have been sincere; however, unless you know how these guys work, you could easily be taken in. I further believe when her appointment became a part of a court case, she was advised, appropriately, to stay away and say nothing. The court decision could have another impact on the Board. If the judge rules in favor of Ganim, there is still an impending resignation to be filled, who fills it? If the judge rules in favor of Maria, we start at square one again. This is not over by a long shot; however, I believe in the end the members will do right by the students, and they will force themselves to get along while doing Board business. When they’re through with that, they could go outside and kill each other.

        0
        1. Lisa, I believe you are correct (few people are happy being “used” unless there’s something substantial in it for them). My point is merely she’s the only one with an easy out, and her resignation doesn’t affect the balance of power. If she had resigned prior to Fonseca’s appointment, her resignation would have forced a quorum, but even that is no longer true.

          As to the court case, how is her position any different than Fonseca’s? Wouldn’t we expect Bellis would also want him made a party to the case?

          0
          1. Booty if she resigned prior to the court case it could have been construed she was part of a conspiracy and wanted out. I don’t believe she was, but by the time it was realized, it was already in court. I don’t know who’s advising her, but they know what they’re doing.

            0
        2. Lisa, when I was informed the seat would have to be replaced with a Rep. I stated to no one in particular it would be a problem if it were an Anglo American male from Black Rock. The Board should be representative of its district. When Ms. Negron’s name was mentioned I applauded it. (Her father Rafael Segarra was a dear friend of my family. A fair and honest man.) I’m sure she would make a good member if given the chance.

          0
          1. Hector, Ms. Negron has an abysmal attendance record, and that was before the boycott. She attended three meetings. She did not attend a single committee meeting.

            0
          2. You’re right, Hector. I remember her dad, he was a nice person. I’ve never met Ms. Negron, but for sure she went on in the middle of a firestorm. Hopefully everything will get back to some point of normal and she can show what she has. I hope for everyone it works out.

            0
  5. PLEASE REMEMBER. We all await the decision from Judge Barbara Bellis as to the legality of the TWO Ganim appointments: Segarra-Negron and Fonseca. This ain’t over yet!

    0
  6. My guess, my prediction, Bradley, Larcheveque and McSpirit will maintain their “boycott” until Judge Bellis makes a decision. Then things will get very interesting.

    0
    1. I hope your prediction is right, that seems to be the only way bring even more attention to how bad things are and that there is NO leadership in City Hall.

      0
      1. Ron, that’s already been established. JG swearing in Fonseca was not a noble move, it was a desperate one, he had to get the boycott behind him. I don’t think he gives a darn what happens next. Mario may be devastated because he’s the one who wanted to get his grimy hands on the spoils of the BOE. I’m certainly not defending Joe, but he’s not going near anything that could resemble inappropriateness. Mario’s another story!!!

        0
        1. How inappropriate is it to neglect the request from the BOE for City funding this year? How does a Mayor ignore the youth entering Kindergarten who need dedicated, extra assistance to begin the reading targets for first grade? (The Mayor is also ignoring making clear where he resides, isn’t he? It smacks of inappropriateness, doesn’t it?) Time will tell.

          0
    1. Frank, that’s a great question. She’s already made it plain what side she’s on. Could her staff, who really care about the children of Bridgeport, go against her mandate? She is a lame duck, either way.

      0

Leave a Reply