Last week the Bridgeport Board of Education conducted its first meeting as an elected body since July of 2011 when a majority vote dissolved the elected school district in support of state control of schools that was eventually overturned by the Connecticut Supreme Court. A coalition of four school board members argued based on the legal assertion of retired Superior Court Judge Carmen Lopez, a supporter of the group, Leticia Colon gave up her right to serve on the board when she was elected to the City Council. Colon recently resigned from the council to satisfy language in the City Charter that prohibits a member of the city’s legislative body from serving on another board. In a written opinion, City Attorney Mark Anastasi declares that Colon is a “duly elected member” of the school board. See his rationale below:
It is the opinion of the Office of the City Attorney that Ms. Leticia Colon is a duly elected member of the Board of Education for the City of Bridgeport (“Local Board”). This is rendered upon consideration of the following pertinent facts and circumstances:
• The Bridgeport City Charter states in pertinent part at Chapter, 5, Sec. 5 (g) (2): “No person while holding office as a member of the city council shall be a member of any of the boards of the city …”
• Leticia Colon was elected to a 4 year term on the Local Board on or about November 3, 2009.
• On or about July 5, 2011 the Local Board voted pursuant to C.G.S. 10-223(e) to request the CT State Board of Education (“State Board”) to authorize the CT State Commissioner of Education (“Commissioner”) to reconstitute the Local Board.
• On or about July 6, 2011 the State Board voted to authorize the Commissioner to reconstitute the Local Board.
• On or about August 5 and 16,2011 the Commissioner, appointed seven (7) new members to the Local Board.
• On or about November 8, 2011, Leticia Colon was elected to a two (2) year term for the position of City Council Member for the 131st Council District of the Bridgeport City Council.
• On or about March 13, 2012 the CT Supreme Court released a decision and opinion in the consolidated matters of Maria Pereira, et al. v. State Board of Education et al.; Robert Walsh et. al. v. State Board of Education, et. al.; Laurayne Farrar-James et. of. v. Board of Education of the City of Bridgeport, et. al. concluding that the State Board’s failure to require the local board to undergo and complete training, as required by § 10-223e (h), rendered void the State Board’s authorization to the Commissioner to reconstitute the local Board. The CT Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court with direction to set a date for a special election for the Local Board for the four (4) seats that would have been filled by the November 2011 municipal elections. The CT Supreme Court also stated: “… the trial court shall direct that the seven current members of the reconstituted board remain in office until the special election has been completed. At that time, the trial court shall reinstate the five members of the local board whose terms of office have not expired, to serve along with the four newly elected members.”
• On or about April 18, 2012 the Superior Court, Agati, J. issued an Order (copy attached).
• On or about September 4, 2012 four new members were elected to the BPT BOE bringing the Board to its full complement of nine (9) members.
• On September 5, 2012, the Head Moderator for the September 4, 2012 Special Election filed his set of election returns in accordance with c.G.S. Sec. 9-314(b).
• On September 7, 2012, the BPT Town Clerk certified the results of the Special Election and the BPT Registrars of Voters reported the results of the election to the CT Superior Court.
• On or about September 7,2012, the Republican and Democratic Registrars of Voters notified the Court that final certification of the special election results was completed.
• On September 7,2012, the Superior Court, Agati, J. issued an Order that reinstated the five (5) members of the local Board whose terms of office have not expired and entered judgment in accordance with this order (copy attached).
• That same day, on or about September 7, 2012, Leticia Colon, in reliance upon BPT Charter, Chapter 5, Sec. 5 (g) (2) submitted her written resignation to the Bridgeport City and Town Clerks.
A lot of info. What about getting a non-city third party lawyer to opine?
Just curious though, is it official when the city lawyer or when the state says someone is duly elected? Is the state still deciding or the city? And while the state court decided to have BOE members be re-instated, did they also mention members who took an oath for a second city office in the interim, as is case back in November 2011?
This is NOT TRUE!
The CT Supreme Court also stated: “… the trial court shall direct that the seven current members of the reconstituted board remain in office until the special election has been completed. At that time, the trial court shall reinstate the five members of the local board whose terms of office have not expired, to serve along with the four newly elected members.
Local Board Dissolved itself–Supreme Court decision Local Board Dissolved itself!
The court rejected arguments by the state and by Bridgeport that the takeover complied with the law because a 6-3 majority on Bridgeport’s elected board essentially dissolved itself when it voted in July to authorize the takeover. Takeover supporters had argued that the July vote effectively waived the training requirement.
The court disagreed. After a lengthy analysis of, among other things, “Connecticut’s long-standing policy of preferring and preserving locally elected boards of education,” the majority concluded that the training requirement cannot be waived.
The court’s majority opinion characterized mandatory training as a kind of last-ditch protection for local boards of education facing takeover. It is protection as well, the majority said, for citizens who elect the boards and for the tradition of local, political control.
This is nothing more than another made-up decision by the city attorney’s office. I don’t care what they ruled, Leticia Colon resigned from the BOE to take a seat on the council. This is a seat she should not have held according to the city attorney because in effect she was still a member of the BOE. Mark, you can’t have it both ways.
This is not a legal opinion.
This is merely a chronological listing of events in which the City Attorney attempts to reach his logical conclusion.
A legal opinion needs to state case law and/or settled law (I believe is the term) in which specific cases have been brought along the same lines and preferably to a higher court.
Ideally the US Supreme Court would have ruled on the same or very similar issue. If not them, then US District Appeals Court, State Supreme Court or State Superior Court. Last would be if there were no known court case in which a similar case was decided in which case the City Attorney should refer to state law and lastly local law (Charter and/or ordinance). Attorney Anastasi has noted no such findings. This could be because he could not find any, in which case he should clearly state that, or because any references to similar situations would provide proof Ms. Colon should not be seated.
Again read Attorney Anastasi’s prose. I refuse to refer to this as a legal opinion. Ms. Colon chose to run for the City Council thus vacating her seat on the board of Ed. Mr Anastasi cites language from the Supreme Court that “the trial court shall reinstate the five members of the local board whose terms have not expired.”
Would Mr. Anastasi be arguing the board would have to reinstate a former board member who passed away arguing that their term had not expired even though they had? Reading his diatribe, one would expect him to.
Would Mr. Anastasi be arguing the board would have to reinstate a former board member who had been found guilty of a felony that required him to surrender his right to vote? The same fate that persuaded our former mayor to resign because he could no longer claim his status as an elector in the city of Bridgeport. Again trying to follow Mr. Anastasi’s illogical logic one would expect him to even though this would be contrary to state law.
But if John Bagley were not successful in his election effort and if a Republican or other candidate won who the city could cut a deal with then Ms. Colon would have stayed on the City Council and the first order of business would have been to select a replacement for Ms. Colon.
But since that did not happen Attorney Anastasi submitted this piece of garbage to the Board of Education and realizing they had the votes to sustain it, Ms. Colon is deemed qualified.
And to all of the people who do not understand the level of frustration that erupts at times at BOE meetings this is why. It is not what is best for the children. It is not what is best for the taxpayers. It is not what is best for the future of the city. It is what is best for the powers that be and as long as they have the votes they will continue to get their way.
What Bob Walsh means isThis isn’t a binding legal opinion. To say a Bridgeport lawyer isn’t delivering a legal opinion is to discredit that office.… and after the financial meltdown it is so difficult to obtain credit in Bridgeport. So we subsist on discredit?
*** Does anybody really know what time it is, does anybody really care? After Nov’s election and the charter revision question will it matter? *** Zombieland ***
Now it’s back to court over this? This nonsense is never going to end! We need an appointed board and we need it now!
ReallyFrustrated–I’m with you on this nonsense. Her status should have been addressed/contested back in March when the court first ruled. Opponents should have fought to force a decision and Dems should have made one then. Court left it hanging out there and that’s where it stayed until Sept.
So what now–the WFP and Simmons won’t participate in BOE business until this is resolved? But everyone ran on “what’s best for the kids” … LOL LOL. This is more like “I must win at all costs to soothe my ego” … for ALL SIDES (DEM, WFP, etc). If past form hold true, I’ll guess we’ll get a Judge Lopez/WFP response by tomorrow.
Follow-up on one thing … I’m not in favor of fully appointed, but this type of stuff really makes you think.
Could we not try to support the board before we drop back to the acrimony and dysfunction that prompted the dissolution of the old board?
So far, this continues to sound like the scorched earth of old approach.
Anastasi is a poster boy for the theme 2% of lawyers give the rest a good name.