School Board Approves Testani Contract, Eliminates Residency Requirement

The Board of Education by a 6-3 vote has approved a new three-year contract for Superintendent of Schools Michael Testani that includes a base pay of $275,000 and waiving the residency requirement.

From Richard Chumney, CT Post:

The vote came after Testani agreed to forfeit three weeks of vacation time and other benefits in exchange for stripping out a clause in the employment agreement that requires the superintendent to live within the city limits.

“The decision to provide Mr. Testani with a new agreement going out to 2025 is one which provides stability of leadership to the District, and I’m very happy we were able to cement it,” Board Chair John Weldon wrote in an email Tuesday.

Weldon voted in favor of the contract alongside Board Secretary Joseph Lombard, Sybil Allen, Albert Benejan, Erika Castillo and Michael Maccarone. Vice Chair Bobbi Brown, Christine Baptiste-Perez and Joseph Sokolovic voted in opposition.

The three board members who opposed the contract said they were not comfortable offering Testani, who lives in a neighboring community, an extension after he failed to establish residency in the city–a requirement outlined in his previous contract.

Full story here.



  1. Pay increases to $275,000? Check.
    Life insurance benefit 2x pay? Check.
    Responsibility contested but signed onto initially to move to Bridgeport, REMOVED? Check.
    $5,000 Annuity premium bonus? Check
    Giveback of three weeks vacation? Check, but who does oversight of plan for minus three vacation? Just asking

    OK for man at top? What about three year goals that same period covered by this contract?
    Where will today’s Kindergartners have progressed over the time period? Predictions to monitor?
    Any city wide focus on reading preparation for least prepared entering Kindergarten?
    What changes contemplated for results over the three years, and ways for public to monitor intended success?
    Time will tell.

  2. As you may know, I voted no. I was outvoted and now we have an enforceable contract that The board must abide by. But I do have a few clarifications.

    The $275k is his current salary frozen for one year, (this reflects the 30k raise last year that I also voted against).

    The board still has to meet and come up with two goals of our own.

    Vacation usage monitored by Chair.

    For citywide kindergarten prep a new online program to help pre-k students throughout the city was purchased (internet not required to use only to download and update) for use by all Bridgeport pre-k children, although the name escapes me.
    This programs effectiveness will be reviewed by staff and presented to teaching and learning committee for effectiveness.

    And as always next year, when we evaluate the supt and discuss entering into a new three year agreement based on that evaluation (statute limits contracts to 3 years).

    I, for one will utilize data and emotionless facts to make my decision. I will base it on performance for the 22-23 school year.

    I hope and pray for the success of our children, as well as for our city.

  3. What does it say about a person-in-high-leadership’s priorities, commitment, and expectations when they won’t live among the charges that they would lead?!

    And we wonder why Bridgeport is a failed city — disdained and abandoned by the State of Connecticut and its leadership — with a failed police department, failed school system, and just about any other governmental systemic failure that can be identified, per application at the municipal level…

    But don’t worry; we’re the Music Capital of Connecticut! (Not!… And so-what, anyway, if we are…)

  4. RT
    I can make a guess at the election cycle, the ‘Bob’ you reference, and the AKA hint, but why be so coy?
    And why discuss an ‘abandoned city’ ? Just piggybacking on Jeff Kohut’s ‘failed city’ words? Remember when it come to telling stories, repetition is one way of reinforcing a simple message, even when the simple message may not be true.
    If your hidden “winner” runs on the Republican ticket, why can he not declare opposition to the untruth of the “Big Lie?” I would hope that anyone running locally on that ticket would do the same. Failure to reject such democracy damaging rhetoric undercuts my respect for the inherent values and integrity of such persons.
    When will we gather together for in person discussion, showing the energy of the people to self-government? Time will tell.

  5. I wasn’t being coy more than being facetious 🙂

    I invoked the city, Port’s abandonment not to piggyback on Jeff Kohut’s comment regarding its abandonment by the state but rather to open a forum of discussion. But I hear you on the repetition of reinforcing a simple message. I can’t escape the televised prime time of the Jan 6 big lie, . BAM! 🤣

    To piggyback on AKA Walter, Bob Stefanowski. He was the worse candidate out of the Republican field in the last gubernatorial race. Let’s not forget, it was a time when the Connecticut Democate Partly was so unpopular their sitting Governor, Malloy, couldn’t even run for reelection. Mark Boughton shouldn’t win easily the Republican nomination against Lamont, who has 20 years of the executive office. But somehow Walter won the Republican nomination. Paving the way for a Lamont Democrat victory.

    That Democratic dymanics may be different this time around but it’s there, nationally too, regardless of the big lie to democracy. Normally I would say this time around Mark would easily win the Republican nomination and the governor’s seat. But it appears he’s given up his mayoralship to work in Lamont’s Democate Administration as a Revenue service commissioner. LOL

    Things that make you go, what the F$%K? 🤣

    My point about (R) AKA Walter, Bob may be a better friend to the Port in Hartford than (D) Lamont has been. He could be a John Rowland of the Port. JS

    Hint: why I called Bob, AKA Walter, AKA Buttermaker? The Port’s the Bad News Bears. A time before wokeness. How’s that for diversity? “Now a girl” SMH 🤣


Leave a Reply