The Connecticut Supreme Court has ordered a special election to fill four vacancies on Bridgeport’s Board of Education, following a ruling that invalidates state control of city schools. The current reconstituted board that replaced the elected body will remain in place until results of the special election set at the direction of the trial court are certified. But couldn’t the current Bridgeport resident members of the reconstituted body run for the seats they currently occupy? Yes. Will they?
Hernan Illingworth, Jacqueline Kelleher, Kenneth Moales and Michelle Black Smith-Tompkins, current members of the state-appointed BOE, all reside in Bridgeport. Would they be willing to place their names on the ballot? Illingworth and Moales have announced they will. If the trial court follows the general course for a special election it would take place this summer with parties endorsing candidates and challenge opponents petitioning their way onto the ballot.
So we’ll likely see a special election for BOE this summer followed by a ballot question in November, per Mayor Bill Finch’s empaneled Charter Revision Commission, asking voters to choose between an appointed BOE or an elected. Nothing like democracy, eh? A hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning in Waterbury Superior Court. Could the judge push off the special election until November?
Before the Bridgeport takeover case that was based on a relatively new law, when municipalities sought state control a special master was appointed to supervise school systems. Superintendent of Schools Paul Vallas, whether in the past or in his early current role, seems to have the credentials needed to direct the school system on a new path. So a scenario is possible that several members of the reconstituted board could end up as elected school board members, with Vallas as super, and a 6-3 majority on votes, just like before the state takeover.
This is part of the dissenting decision of Justice Richard N. Palmer. It’s 39 pages long and so far I don’t see where Justice Palmer justifies his assumptions other than to quote Federal and State legislation, most of which had never been challenged in court. I wonder if he even bothered to read the FOI documents regarding the negotiations between the City and the State.
“… The majority does not even attempt to justify its assumption that permitting a local board of education to waive the mandated training would deprive the citizens of this state of adequate notice of an impending reconstitution or render the reconstitution process impermissibly opaque or overhasty. The majority also does not attempt to explain how the citizens of Connecticut’s various towns and cities could have an overriding interest in the transparency and deliberateness of the reconstitution process in Bridgeport, an interest so strong as to outweigh that city’s own interest in permitting the Bridgeport board, acting on behalf of the local electorate, to waive the training contemplated by § 10-223e (h) in order to discharge as expeditiously as possible the Bridgeport board’s duty to protect the schoolchildren’s constitutional right to an adequate public education …”
These puppets shouldn’t bother running. They could have done so in the past, but instead played along with their appointment process. Now, the same Democratic Town Committee who remained silent during this entire fiasco is supposed to be trusted with endorsing quality candidates for the BOE. What a freakin’ joke!
AND???
Some readers may think I enjoy reviewing financial reports more than I enjoy stimulating conversation with real people. That’s not true. But while OIB and its readers/writers continue to focus on the people, someone has to keep reminding all that OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT governance does not just happen. It takes responsible people who are willing to push hard at times against the very human notion of those in power that they are doing more than enough. (Of course there are times where those in power are pursuing their own interests, which are in conflict with the general interest, and where the less said, reported and available to the public, the better.)
So regardless of party affiliation, educational philosophy or connection with the City administration, wouldn’t it be helpful to indicate what info is available to the public, as well as the overseers, through the wonders of current technology in a timely fashion? Wouldn’t that do wonders for the public in terms of providing background and becoming more informed? And wouldn’t the public be able to better support those elected especially when there are thorny questions over which reasonable people can disagree? What do you want the BOE to regularly see and what did they see in the past? And how can the public be entitled to similar transparency and accountability? Time will tell.
BEACON2, I understand your concern. But read the comment made by Vallas. Vallas is the interim Superintendent and four of the appointed BOE members may not be there in the near future. Yet Vallas wants to push a five-year budget. How long does he plan to stay as Interim Super? He didn’t even stay long enough in the other School districts he claims to have improved under his leadership to even make such assumptions. And Justice Palmer wants to talk about the assumptions of his colleagues!
www .ctpost.com/local/article/What-does-the-Supreme-Court-decision-mean-3368422.php
Joel,
Why has the education subject been so important to so many people who have attended BOE events, spoken at public meetings, written to the press and confronted City Council members? Because of the kids and the dismal outcomes of our system year after year that no one can cheer? I think so.
However, for whatever reason many folks within the educational establishment or governance in general, have found it in their interest to frustrate a public view of the way the education machine works, how money is consumed, where accountability is hidden, how the public is kept from getting direct answers and how hard some folks work to keep things secret, a mystery, and then point to outsiders as culprits, so the blame game continues and nothing changes. Frustrating? A sickness in need of healing? You bet.
Forgive me for focusing on the financial issues. They are critical to a strong solution and remedy for what has ailed Bridgeport. And I do not necessarily focus on ‘more money,’ at least not until we get current accountability on track so all can see where the patient is today and how a five-year prescription and funding will move us out of the ‘intensive care unit.’
First, getting to a turnaround budget approval for this year by folks new to our system in a short period is commendable I suggest and very necessary. Of course I want to see what has been developed by Vallas to the BOE and I want to hear their discussion and ultimate approval promptly.
Second, I am willing to trust Vallas’ viewpoint that a long-term educational AND financial plan is important, before I see his actual output rather than what we have been fed for the past ten years in Bridgeport. (If the State buys into the process, the plan and the current manager also, then there is a lot more dependability on revenue flow here in the City than we have had in the past, something the Charter Revision Commission has talked about already relating to the dates for City Council budget approval.) The State is entitled to make some very serious demands on planning, monitoring; in short, accountability for the funds it has committed in past years and the ones that will be part of the Vallas plan for educational improvement going into the future. Do you agree? The old maxim about ‘he who has the gold makes the rules’ is totally understandable when you realize between operating ECS funds and sharing in new school or renovation expenses has brought upwards of $2 Billion into the City in the past 10-12 years. Wouldn’t we be criticizing the State if they were not looking at what the ECS funding is doing for the young people of Bridgeport? So longer-term planning is good for the patient, and for the stakeholders in Bridgeport as long as the info is OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT to the public no matter how long Paul Vallas or any leader is present. Time will tell.
Yesterday, the Governor’s General Counsel (not, you’ll note, the Governor) issued the following statement:
“Today’s Supreme Court decision is disappointing and has the potential to seriously disrupt the educational opportunities of Bridgeport’s schoolchildren this year. We are reviewing the implications of this decision and intend to discuss further legal and legislative options with state and local officials in the very near future. Our goal has always been to create a stable, productive and educationally sound environment for a chronically struggling school district. Our focus will not change.”
That doesn’t sound like they have given up on the idea of legislation which would have the effect of setting aside the Supreme Court decision.
Can they do that? Probably.
Should they? Of course not.
A lot will depend on the position of Bridgeport’s legislative delegation, all of whom are up for reelection this year. Where do they stand?
That is the question of the day.
One good thing about the special election. It will be a test for all parties. The quality of the candidates they nominate will speak volumes about their commitment to public education, or the lack thereof.
And the only people who vote in a special election will be the Finch and Testa pawns.
No one comes out for special elections except those who are told to. And the only way someone opposing Finch and Testa can get elected is to work their ass off for very little result. It’s all a sham and a shame.
Bob,
Have you been out to the Education meetings of the past year? Generally there are more people attending these than attend the City Council or any of the many Board, Commission and other meetings held weekly in the City on multiple subjects. Stakeholders of all types but especially parents, young folks from the community, professionals and others employed by the educational establishment, social agency types who work with the system and even a few from the general public, are present. They are following this process closely. There are many opinions. We may have a healthier number voting than in many years past. The parent school associations may finally mobilize. After all it is an issue that needs little connection to see an affect on their children’s future. A specific message will matter here. Time will tell.
At this point the former BOE members are now reinstated and should plan their next meeting. Right?
One thing for sure is I will not, I repeat, I will not vote for Kenneth Moales. Last thing we need is a religious leader hypocrite.
Phil Smith, you are 100% correct when you said, “A lot will depend on the position of Bridgeport’s legislative delegation, all of whom are up for reelection this year. Where do they stand?”
Let’s call them by their name, House of Representative members: Andres Ayala, Charles Clemons, Auden Grogins, John Hennessy, Ezequiel Santiago and Charles Stallworth, State Senators Ed Gomes and Anthony Musto. Let’s see if they support Mayor Finch’s illegal takeover of the BOE. Their SILENCE will speak volumes, they do support the illegal takeover of the BOE unless they come forward to tell the voters something different.
They are going to be under big-time pressure from the teacher’s union to speak up against Malloy’s bill, too. And teachers have family members who vote … who have friends …
Just sayin’ …
*** Let’s hope this BOE (city taxpayers’ money) election generates lots of new concerned residents looking to step up to the plate in getting involved in Bpt’s education system. It’s out with the old and in with the new once again! In the meantime let’s hope Vallas continues his shake-up of the system and the money they overspend, no? *** HERE WE GO! ***
*** While I’m in a shake things up frame of mind, let’s not forget to tell your neighbors, friends or relatives who may live in the 131st or 137th districts to go out and “vote” (Tues. March 6, 2012 from 6am to 8pm). It’s time to get involved in matters that affect you and your neighborhood most on a local level! The present sitting DTC slates claim they have nothing to prove because they’ve done the job and know what’s better for the city! What do you think, OIB? *** Volunteers needed for election day to help the “Bpt First Challenge Slate.” Call C. Curry (203-227-3573) *** HOPE FOR CHANGE ***
Ever since Bob Walsh’s comment, ‘Norm Pattis has alot to say,’ I’ve been checking out Norm’s blog (kind of obsessively).
His latest (not good news, BTW, but does mention OIB):
www .pattisblog.com/index.php?article=War_Of_Attrition_Begins_In_Bridgeport_School_Case_5283
Now I just have to figure out who MCAT is.
The Bpt delegation need to take a stand now including Senator Musto from Trumbull. What’s it gonna be, boys? Are you gonna stand up for the rights of Bpt voters or are you gonna bow down to the massas Finch, Testa and Malloy. What’s it gonna be?
How can this be, that a group of white men seek to disenfranchise an entire city of voters, the majority of whom are minority? The Supreme court rules these actions were illegal and restores the right to vote. Then these same white men seek the assistance of legislators from other towns the majority of which are, yep, white men, to create a law to permanently strip the people of Bpt of their right to elect bd of ed candidates. What month is it? Black History Month of course.
My ancestors are turning over in their graves.
Il buono tentativo mio amico.
harley76, you made a great point when you wrote, “How can this be, that a group of white men seek to disenfranchise an entire city of voters, the majority of whom are minority.” But first the problem starts with me for not doing more to fight back. Second, the black and Latino community has allowed this to happen by not getting involved and not holding elected officials ACCOUNTABLE. I hope this is a wake-up call.
The entire Bridgeport delegation has been quiet since this battle started. We have four minority state legislators plus two white legislators and of our two senators one is a minority.
Let’s start putting the blame where it belongs on ALL the Bridgeport legislators, not just the whites in Hartford. The silence of our delegation speaks volumes.
tc,
Yes, it does.