News release from State Senator Marilyn Moore:
Today, state Senator Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport) gave her support for a piece of legislation to establish a process for removing members of local and regional Boards of Education (BOE) in certain circumstances. The legislation is timely due to recent events in Bridgeport in which a member of the BOE was removed from their position as chair.
“This legislation will provide regional and local Boards of Education a uniform process to utilize in the unfortunate event a member of their BOE conducts themselves in a way inconsistent with the values of the position,” said Sen. Moore. “The people who sit on the board make crucial decisions that affect our children and their futures. Therefore, it is imperative the folks who sit on these boards are focused on the task at hand and exhibit professional behavior at all times.”
The bill, see here, received a public hearing during Monday’s Education Committee meeting. The next step in the legislative process for RB 393 would be a vote in the Education Committee. The bill would address BOE removal, “whenever complaint is made in writing to a local or regional board of education that a member of such board has been convicted of a crime or is guilty of misconduct or wilful and material neglect of duty in the conduct of such board member’s office,” according to the current bill’s language.
The bill’s language continues: “such board shall make such investigation of the charges as such board deems proper, and shall, if such board is of the opinion that the evidence obtained warrants such action, prepare a statement in writing of the charges against such board member, together with a citation in the name of the state, commanding such board member to appear before such board at a date named in the citation and show cause, if any, why such board member should not be removed from office as provided in this section.” If passed, this legislation would go into effect on October 1, 2020.
On March 2, the Bridgeport BOE removed Jessica Martinez as chair of the board after a photograph of her using an illegal substance surfaced on social media. Martinez however, remains an elected member of the board and is up for reelection next year.
Sounds good, that was my concern, about due process when issue came up in OIB.
Mr. Mackey there was already due process for removing a chair that The board elects. The board elects the chair and removes the chair. The process is written into the bylaws. It can be challenged by the person being removed. Process was followed. Do we really want our BOE to have the power to override a city election?
Me. Grimaldi I would like to comment but i can’t link to bill and it’s language. My biggest concern is the minority voice and it’s protection currently the BOE can only remove people from positions it votes to elect. IE: chair, vice chair and secretary. We cannot remove people that the voters put in office (why only BOE’s what of city/town councils?)
My biggest concern is this statement “ BOE conducts themselves in a way inconsistent with the values of the position,” that language seems kind of vague. How does that protect the minority voice that one disagrees vociferously and publicly with things like:
Hiring a superintendent without public notice?
Signing his contract without negotiation?
Calling out the mayor and city council publicly for their chronic underfunding and neglect?
Will the board be able to say I make them look bad (they do that already but as a toothless tiger) can these things be considered “inconsistent with board values” and I be voted out? What protections are in the bill? Any appeal process?
Just some initial thoughts. I’ll circle back after reading the proposal in it’s entirety.
Joe, correct link is now loaded. Thanks. https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2020&bill_num=393
Joe
How about a corrupted mayor?
Mark Anastasi said there was no way for the City Council to remove Ganim so he continued to draw his salary after he was arrested. All along while he awaited trial. It was only when he was found guilty and lost his right to vote did the language in the City Charter kick in because he must be an elector in the city to serve as mayor. Surely if we are re-examining the rules on how to remove an elected official this too should be looked at.
Bob, C” MON MAN, you know damn well that this City Council wouldn’t even discuss the subject, Joe will say jump and the council will answer, how high.
Joe would say shit and the council will say what color.
Only two pieces of testimony. Both in opposition.
Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, Inc.
81 Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, CT 06109-1242 – (860) 571-7446 – Fax (860) 571-7452 – http://www.cabe.org
Testimony submitted to the Education Committee
March 9, 2020
SB 393 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR THE REMOVAL OF A MEMBER OF A BOARD OF EDUCATION.
CABE strongly opposes SB 393, An Act Establishing a Process for the Removal of a Member of a Board of Education. This bill proposes to create a process where a board of education would be required to sit as judge and jury with respect to a complaint made against one of their colleagues. This would establish an unprecedented process in Connecticut and would be extremely disruptive to the governance process. Requiring a board of education to conduct an investigation whenever a complaint is made – regardless of how frivolous it may be – would divert the attention of the board from their statutorily required role to implement the educational interests of the state. The process established in the bill is similar to a criminal proceeding, including a statement of written charges, the power to summon witnesses and require the production of documents. We are not aware of any other state using such a process, and we urge you to reject SB 393.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION
Testimony of the Judicial Branch Education Committee Public Hearing
March 9, 2020
S.B. 393, An Act Establishing a Process for the Removal of a Member of a Board of Education
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the Judicial Branch regarding S.B. 393, An Act Establishing a Process for the Removal of a Member of a Board of Education. The Judicial Branch has several concerns with the bill as proposed.
First, it is generally unclear why the court would be involved in the process to remove a member of a local or regional Board of Education. The phrase “lodged with the clerk of the superior court” as used in line 30 has a very specific meaning under Practice Book 7-4C. Lodging of documents is done in connection with a motion to seal a document or documents in a case that is or will be filed with the superior court. However, under the proposed bill, a school board “lodges” its order of removal with the clerk, and the clerk “causes” a certified copy of the board’s order to be served on the board member, which is the official act that removes the board member from office. The bill as proposed would require a new process in the clerk’s office for a matter that is not filed with the court and would have no docket number. Moreover, the bill is silent as to who pays for the certified copy and service fees.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. We would be happy to work with you on the language should the committee decide to move forward on the bill.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH
231 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 757-2270 Fax (860) 757-2215
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2020) Except as otherwise provided by special act, charter, ordinance or home-rule ordinance, whenever complaint is made in writing to a local or regional board of education that a member of such board has been convicted of a crime or is guilty of misconduct or wilful and material neglect of duty in the conduct of such board member’s office, such board shall make such investigation of the charges as such board deems proper, and shall, if such board is of the opinion that the evidence obtained warrants such action, prepare a statement in writing of the charges against such board member, together with a citation in the name of the state, commanding such board member to appear before such board at a date named in the citation and show cause, if any, why such board member should not be removed from office as provided in this section. Such board shall cause a copy of such statement and citation to be served, by some proper officer, upon such board member at least ten days before the date of appearance named in such citation, and the original statement and citation, with the return of the officer thereon, shall be returned to such board. To carry into effect the proceedings authorized by this section, such board shall have power to summon witnesses, require the production of necessary books, papers and other documents and administer oaths to witnesses; and, upon the date named in such citation for the appearance of such board member, or upon any adjourned date fixed by such board, such hearing shall be conducted. After a full hearing of all the evidence offered by such board and by and on behalf of such board member, such board shall vote on whether the evidence presented warrants the removal of such board member from office. With the consent of two-thirds of the members of such board, such board member shall be removed from office, and such board shall cause to be prepared a written order to that effect, which order shall be signed by such board and lodged with the clerk of the superior court for the judicial district in which such board member resides. Such clerk of the superior court shall cause a certified copy of such order to be served forthwith upon such board member, and upon such service the office held by such board member shall become vacant and the vacancy thereby created shall be filled at once in the manner provided in section 9-220 of the general statutes. Any witnesses summoned and any officer making service under the provisions of this section shall be allowed and paid by the state the same fees as are allowed by law in criminal prosecutions.
Some problematic language. “Guilty of Misconduct” “in the boards opinion”.
Let’s use myself as a case study. I’m often times a harsh critic on social media and in the press of the board and administration. I was recently charge via email with breaching confidentiality of executive session. (Untrue and unfounded)
The board could’ve “in its opinion” found me guilty of “misconduct” during a trial in which they had subpoena powers, and removed a thorn in its side. With a mere six votes. I am often out voted 7-2 or 8-1. What do you think would happen to the only voice raised against signing contracts without reading them, protested loudly and publicly about the public being shut out of major decisions?
Would this added burden silence me? No, it would not. I would fight like heck to keep my position. But I will not be on the board forever. What about the next person in my seat? Would they remain quiet for fear of removal by a majority? That’s the problem with knee jerk legislation. Unintended consequences.
Joe- what you describe is just like most of the council members who need Mario’s blessing to be where they are, which is MOST of the council. Just a bunch yes persons who stay silent, do what they’re told and not what’s generally good for the people.
Joe
I had a problem with “confidentiality of executive session” back when I was on the council.
I called the office of FOI and wanted to know why I could not seek out independent counsel for a matter discussed in executive session. I was told that there is no such mule. They asked though why wouldn’t I trust the City Attorney. I said it was Bridgeport. Nuff said.
All you need is a written opinion from the FOI
The Bpt. Board of Ed. has been messing up big-time for years with no real professional nor positive rules on do’s & don’ts while actively on the BOE. If you look at what they’ve actually done that has made a great positive impact for the schools, its students, parents, teachers & community of Bpt. in general, compared to the negative decisions, political in-house fighting, state wide negative redicure of Bpt’s schools & the occasional drug & alcohol abuse finger pointing by board members. There seems to be more negative than positive gains for the Bpt Public Schools System, no? ***