UPDATE: Amanda Pinto, spokesperson for Achievement First, issued this email statement to OIB. “The officers were not called to the school by a member of the AF Bridgeport Academy Elementary staff. They were there to assist with an issue unrelated to school. They were not SROs.”
In her latest cinéma vérité that includes her voice-over, former Board of Education member Maria Pereira films school resource officers manning a charter school against school board policy, according to Pereira. She asserts charter school coverage should be handled by city police officers. The school board funds the salaries and benefits of the school-based law enforcement officers. Pereira views independently operated charter schools as sapping finances from traditional public schools. “Charter school students should have police protection,” says Pereira, “but by the Bridgeport Police Department” and not school resource officers funded by the school board.
An excerpt from a statement Pereira issued to her education contacts setting up the videos:
I received a call from a Bridgeport Public School parent that they had just witnessed two (2) BBOE SRO’s pull up to Achievement First Charter School located on Stillman Street. I was in the area and decided to go over and record the SRO’s.
… I then stood across the street and waited for the SRO’s to exit Achievement First. I wanted to make sure they were BBOE SRO’s, not BPD SRO’s. The Part II video shows Jonathan, a Bridgeport Board of Education SRO exiting Achievement First. Part III is a recording of Steve, another BBOE SRO exiting Achievement First Charter School.
The BBOE only has eight (8) SRO’s to patrol, service and protect over 30 Bridgeport Public Schools, its 20,000 students and over 2,000 staff and employees, however, it is perfectly acceptable to have 25% of the entire staff service a call at Achievement First? While these SRO’s are servicing a Charter School, aren’t the 20,000 public school students being placed at risk?
The BBOE utilizes their limited funds to hire and pay 100% of these eight (8) SRO’s salaries and benefits out of their budget, however Lieutenant Grech, Captain Porter, Chief Gaudett and Mayor Finch are having them take calls that are the responsibility of the Bridgeport Police Department. It is against state law for the city to tell the BBOE how to use one dime of their funding …
Over the next five (5) years, the BBOE will lose over $20,000,000 to fund both the transportation and special education costs associated with the state charter schools located in Bridgeport, and although there is no CT state statute that supports this ruse, Mayor Finch, Chief Gaudett, Captain Porter and Lieutenant Grech are ordering the BBOE SRO’s that are fully funded by the BBOE to service charter schools.
If memory serves me, there are some 60 school security personnel (without weapons) who are funded by the BOE. The eight SROs may be funded the way Maria describes but she does not acknowledge they are under the “command” of the Police Department.
A video of their cars in front of Achievement First does not bother me excessively because it was made clear more than one year ago (and no details have been broadcast since then) these eight may be called to cover other areas occasionally just as City police are sometimes called to back up SROs. But since SROs are accustomed to working with the school populations they may be moved around to handle issues as needed.
How long were they at the Charter School might be a good question to answer. And what orders were they following? I assume they have not become stationed there. And the absence of an SRO does not put thousands of students at risk. Risks are presented by members of the community who come to schools with an alternative agenda that threatens the safety of youth and personnel. SROs are there to present a response of trained safety officers.
Not for nothing, Maria is pretty good with a camera, and commentary even if it is slanted to slay Charter Schools. Maria, do you video at night? Only asking to see what City cars are going home these days. And also asking because one or more elected to office representing Bridgeport voters allegedly may be parking their cars out of town at addresses different from their official addresses. Are we talking about real risks? Time will tell.
There is no “may” be funded by the BBOE. They are 100% funded by the BBOE.
The powers granted to the BBOE SROs are granted by the Bridgeport Police Commission, not Chief Gaudett. These eight (8) SROs are in a different bargaining unit than every other police officer in Bridgeport. They are employed by the BBOE and report to Superintendent Rabinowitz, not Chief Gaudett. CT state statute clearly states no city official has authority over BBOE employees, only the superintendent and the BBOE does. Only the BBOE has authority over the expenditures of the BBOE, not any city employee.
It is the role of the Bridgeport Police Department to support the needs of the BPS, not for the BBOE to support the needs of the BPD. When a charter, parochial or technical school is in need of assistance, it is the responsibility of the Bridgeport Police Department to respond to those schools’ need for assistance, not the BBOE SROs. Or charter schools should hire and fund their own SROs.
The BPD was awarded a federal grant last year to hire 10 BPD SROs. If a school other than the BPS is in need of assistance, the BPD SROs should service those calls, not BBOE SROs who were hired to serve the BPS EXCLUSIVELY.
In November 2013, the BBOE passed a motion specifically stating the Bridgeport Police Department was not to dispatch BBOE SROs to any other calls other than to the Bridgeport Public Schools.
If you are concerned about those who are taking taxpayer-funded vehicles home, why don’t you stop whining about it, get off your sofa and record your own videos?
Maria,
I have to commend you for your steadfast efforts. Whether someone agrees with you or not, there is no denying you put your time and effort into making your case. I am at Luis Marin this week. A whole new vibe there. Though I have 8th grade there at the end of the week and we know leopards do not change their spots in a few months, I am always up to the challenge. Just thought I’d say your name came up respectfully a few times by a few teachers who actually care. I thought you’d like to know your efforts are not in vain.
Your name came up because we were discussing charter schools and I mentioned your name and there was a lot of support for you.
Steve, thank you for your kind words. I do communicate with quite a few BPS teachers. I send quite a few emails and articles to teachers regarding the national, state and municipal “deform” movement. For the most part, they are very appreciative of my efforts.
Another incorrect and inaccurate statement made by you, Mr. Bow Tie. You wrote “… it was made clear more than a year ago (and no details have been broadcast since then) these eight may be called to cover other areas occasionally just as City police are sometimes called to back up SROs.”
Over a year ago, huh? No additional details broadcast in over a year, huh? Read them and weep. These are the minutes from the late November 2013 Regular BBOE meeting. Please begin reading on page 19.
www .bridgeportedu.com/Board/docs/2013-2014/Minutes/REG_MEETING_MINUTES_11-25-13.pdf
John, it is a shame when you try and have a dialogue with someone and they start off by calling you names. John, all I can say is take it from its source. I read page 19 of the queens report and nothing was settled at that meeting, it was agreed to take no action until the new board is seated. So you are right and she again is wrong except you said a year and it was off by 1-1/2 months. These columns Lennie keeps publishing by the ex facto BOE queen are just so much bullshit. Here is a person who could have been on the board and made real changes although she did not do much while she was on the board. She quits and now is a major critic. Go figure.
I suggest you keep reading. The BBOE voted four (4) in favor, one (1) abstention and zero (0) opposed to direct Chief Gaudett that BBOE SRO’s were only to be dispatched to Bridgeport Public Schools, not charter, parochial or technical schools.
Are you really going to reprimand someone else on this blog for calling others names? You have repeatedly used foul language on this very blog when referring to others.
Here we have another individual who has difficulty reciting facts. I did not “quit” from anything. I completed my BBOE term from December 2009-November 2013, minus approximately 14 months during the illegal BBOE takeover.
Whether you believe I did or “did not do much” while I served on the BBOE, it is significantly more than you have done for the children, parents and families of Bridgeport public schools.
Really, this statement issued by Achievement First is the best they could do? How ridiculous and idiotic.
Maria, you have accomplished squat and if you think a few videos is the answer you are wrong. I don’t know what you think you have done for the kids in school but what I have done every year is pay my property tax and pay my state taxes on time.
If you think attending meetings and having a disruptive big mouth is helping the kids, then shame on you. I suggest YOU re-read page 19.
I have accomplished so little, I have a strong parent and community following. Really, you actually have the nerve to call someone else a “big mouth?” No Andy, shame on you for your complete ignorance and lack of intelligence. The minutes clearly show a vote was taken on this matter on November 25, 2013. That is a fact, not an opinion or hearsay.
You really are full of yourself, you think you have strong parent and a community following. That’s baloney and you know it. I did read the minutes again and here is what I read. Tom Mulligan moved the question and the board all voted in favor of moving the question. Next the president of the board called for an adjournment and stated this was a complex issue and let the NEW board decide the issue. He and Tom Mulligan left and a vote was taken, it was 4-0 to adjourn or are you saying the vote was for something you discussed but never put in the form to be voted on? I suggest you re-read your own minutes. You of all people should talk about lack of intelligence, you can’t seem to understand the written minutes and definitely do not understand Robert’s Rules. When you read them, let me know.
You, sir, need a course in basic comprehension and in Robert’s Rules of Order.
The November 25, 2013 Regular BBOE meeting minutes read as follows:
Page 19- “Ms. Pereira moved that the police department immediately stop directing BOE security guards and school resource officers from doing work outside of the public schools. The motion was seconded by Ms. Baraka.”
Page 20- “Rev Moales and Mr. Mulligan asked to adjourn the meeting because of an agreement not to do anything drastic until the new board comes in.” (No motion to adjourn was made, there was no second to a motion to adjourn and there was no vote to adjourn.)
“Rev Moales and Mr. Mulligan left the meeting.” (This left five (5) remaining BBOE members, which constituted a quorum.)
“The motion was approved by a 4-0 vote. Voting in favor were members Baraka, Bagley, Pereira and Simmons. Mr. Illingworth abstained.”
It is you who lacks the most basic working knowledge of Robert’s Rules of Order, not I.
There was nothing said until the chairmen called for an adjournment. Then a vote was taken. So now you are equating that vote to your sloppily placed motion. There were no words in this report that this last vote was for your motion. Nice try.
Maria, you are such an expert on Robert’s Rules you should have known Mr. Illingworth could not abstain from the vote, he should have voted Present. Here is the language from Robert’s Rules pertaining to the vote you claim was for your motion “While a quorum is competent to transact any business, it is usually not expedient to transact important business unless there is a fair attendance at the meeting, or else previous notice of such action has been given.” So try as you may, YOU ARE WRONG again.
My motion was made and seconded BEFORE Mr. Moales spoke of an adjournment, not after. Once a main motion is on the floor and seconded, a request or motion to adjourn is out of order. Although a motion to adjourn was not made or seconded. Even if it had been made, the motion would have failed.
There was no other motion on the floor, therefore the vote could only be for my motion.
A member can abstain for ANY reason, there is no requirement to cast a vote in favor or against. There are only three votes that can be cast, in favor, opposed or an abstention.
Voting “present” is not an option. Stating “present” would only be utilized during the taking of attendance.
Eight BBOE members attended this meeting. If three members decided to leave early, two of whom chose to leave while a main motion was on the floor, that is their decision to make. This item was on the agenda, therefore ample notice was given.
Not only are you wrong, you’re pretty much a buffoon.
Out of the sewer rises Maria Pereira with more name-calling and more misinformation. I suggest you read Robert’s Rules of Order and not pretend you know it because like most of your diatribes you don’t know squat, just a Loud Mouth In a Dress. Look in the section on voting and you will find the section that states Illingworth needed to vote present not abstain when this vote for adjournment was made. You had better read Robert’s and find out how you all voted incorrectly on a motion that was not properly brought forth.
I haven’t worn a dress in years, I actually prefer trousers or slacks, a nice tailored pair of flats and a structured handbag.
Clearly you are having some difficulty with your level of oxygen intake as well. Jim Fox, are you presently stepping on Mr. Fardy’s oxygen hose?
The November 25, 2013 minutes read as follows:
“Ms. Baraka moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bagley and unanimously approved.”
“The meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m.”
There is no mention of Mr. Illingworth saying “present” during the vote to adjourn or the motion regarding the school security guards and school resource officers. He voted to “abstain.”
Holy mackerel, you just won’t answer or acknowledge what is said in Robert’s Rules of Order. I have written about it more than once. Your motion was not clarified before this alleged 4-0 vote. Here goes one more time, Mr. Illingworth cannot vote abstained like he did, by doing so he negated any vote that was taken, he needed to vote present to make the vote legal. Once more, “While a quorum is competent to transact any business, it is usually not expedient to transact important business unless there is a fair attendance at the meeting, or else previous notice of such action has been given.”
In order for clarification to be made, a member of the BBOE would have had to state “point of clarification.” Re-read the minutes, no one did.
Any member can abstain on any vote if they so choose.
Your own quote states “it is usually not expedient to transact important business unless there is fair attendance at the meeting, OR else previous notice of such action has been given.”
There were eight (8) of nine (9) members present at this meeting. Although this item was on the published agenda, three (3) members chose to leave early. “Previous notice” was given because it was an agenda item. It also states “USUALLY not expedient,” it does not say it is forbidden.
Can someone get him more oxygen?
Damn it, you just refuse to read Robert’s Rules. don’t you? You can’t abstain, you must vote present.