November 13, 2008 7:51 am

BOE To Norwalk Taxpayers- “Bend Over”

Last night’s council meeting heralded a preview of what’s to come this budget season. The BOE submitted a contract for administrators, that featured a generous and guaranteed yearly pay raise 3.5%, health benefits for administrators who leave the system for 5 years post employment plus their spouses, and vacation time of 20 days for admin staff who are employed 5 years. Council member Doug Hempstead said it best, “We can’t afford this.”

With revenue shortfalls, and the growing reality that city services have to be cut, this is the contract that the BOE sent over. Mind you, without a single person from the BOE to present to the personnel committee why this contract went to arbritration and why it needed to be approved.

So who did this contract get to this point? Well you can ask your elected officials of the BOE, who apparently are so focused on playing games with Corda, that they are missing the bigger picture. Corda outsmarted you boys and girls. And for the BOE to send over the contract with any cost impact study to the cityis outrageous!

The common council had little choice on this, but should have outright rejected the contract. There were concerns that it would cost the taxpayers to reject it only to have it forced back because it was an arbritrated agreement. Personnel director James Hasselkemp supplied some direction on what he thought the regs were, but kept saying that he didn’t know for sure. Well it seems that the City of Plainville did reject that stipulated arbritrated contract, and that the city council got to present to the arbritration baord that convened subsequently that thePlainville couldn’t afford the contract. Here’s the link to their meeting minutes.The interesting thing thatI gelaned from this is that the BOE would set the issues that are being reviewed post rejection, see the Plainville graf below:

The Town is allowed by state statute to make a presentation to the arbitrator and did so on January 11th. Because of the decision made by the BOE, the only issues as stated earlier were the proposed salary increases of 4.5% over each of the next three years. After the presentation was completed, it was up to the BOE to determine what is known as the “last best offer” for the arbitrator to consider. The BOE decided that the last best offer would be 4.4% over the next three years meaning that the arbitrator now has the choice between 4.4% over three years or 4.5% over three years.

Which means Norwalk might have had a shot at reducing the costs of the contract, if the elected BOE would actually respond to the common council. What a lost opportunity, and not for the first time.

Fred Bondi said this was not the first time this happened, and so here’s the council minutes from 2005, where exactly the same issues were discussed:

1. TO CONSIDER THE REJECTION OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD, DATED OCTOBER 11, 2005, IN THE MATTER OF NORWALK BOARD OF EDUCATION AND NORWALK FEERATION OF TEACHERS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 10-153f OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES

Mr. Bondi called for questions. Mr. Krummel stated that he would like to offer a resolution.

** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED THAT FOR ANY FUTURE PROPOSED AGREEMENT INVOLVING A SETTLEMENT SUCH AS THE COUNCIL HAS BEFORE THEM THIS EVENING, THAT THE MAYOR’S OFFICE AND THE FULL COUNCIL BE INFORMED AS SOON AS THE COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT ARE RECEIVED AT CITY HALL.

Mr. Bondi asked Mr. Krummel to state who he thought should make the notification and asked if he wanted to stipulate any particular person or persons to be notified. Mr. Bondi suggested he stipulate the Town Clerk, since that office was where the agreements were filed. Mr. Krummel said that if the agreements were filed with the Town Clerk, then the Town Clerk has the responsibility of notification. He suggested that the Mayor’s office and the Council members be copied with the terms of agreements just as they had been for this meeting, and as the Director of Finance and the President of the Council had been copied.

Mr. Bondi called for discussion on the resolution. Ms. Bain stated that it would be appropriate to understand how contracts get filed and what the requirements of the State statutes and notifications were, as it was slightly unclear.

Mr. Cicciarello remarked that the Statute requires that, by a stipulated arbitration such as this, for the arbitrator, or arbitrators, to file the award with the Town Clerk’s office, the Union and the Board of Education. He went on to say that in that particular section of the Statute, there is no particular requirement that the Town Clerk give notice to anyone. Mr. Cicciarello stated that in an earlier part of the same Statute, where there is a situation where the Union and the Board of Education negotiate a contract without arbitration, they are required to file with the Town Clerk, and at that time, in that particular portion of the Statute, it states that the Town Clerk shall give notice to the public. He said that notice is not defined in the Statute and there were no cases on it that he could find. Mr. Cicciarello said that, in the section the Council was dealing with at this meeting, where there has been a stipulated arbitration award, there is no obligation on the part of the Town Clerk to do anything, which was why he suggested to the Council President the type of resolution which has just been made.

Ms. Bain said that she would support Mr. Krummel’s motion because, if indeed it is the Council’s opportunity and responsibility to review settlements, that there should be conditions so that there is sufficient time to give them due consideration. She just wanted some clarification as to who was responsible for filing, as there had been some question in the past, and that, in this instance, it was the arbitrators’ responsibility.

Mr. Bondi stated that, just to make a stipulation, in this particular filing, the Council most likely couldn’t have acted on it anyway, because this was an arbitration that came back after they had already voted on it. Mr. Wein stated that they hadn’t voted on it, what had happened was that the time had expired on it.

Mr. Cicciarello stated that, in his opinion, any attempt to vote to reject this contract would be improper because the Statute doesn’t have a thirty-day time limit as was assumed by Mr. Davidson, and the Statute was confusing in that respect because it creates two classes of contracts. One is, as he referred to earlier, where the Union and the Board of Education agree on a contract and file it with the Town Clerk, and there they would have a thirty-day time limit. However, where there is an arbitration award, the Statute, for whatever reason, provides only a twenty-five day time limit, and that would have expired on November 7th, which was the past Monday.

Mr. Cicciarello said he should also point out that the Council, two years ago, had a similar experience with the same type of situation; that is, a stipulated award was presented to the Council to review, and the Council actually rejected the contract, and indicated the Council members might recall the situation. He said the contract was rejected under the Statute; arbitration was resumed; a new arbitrator was appointed; Mr. Hamilton attempted to meet with representatives from Hartford who came to Norwalk but the arbitrator would not allow it because the Statute indicated the City was not a part of the discussion; only the parties involved, the Union and the Board of Education, were allowed to participate. Mr. Cicciarello said that under the Statute their last best offers were controlled, and due to the fact that the Board of Education and the Union agreed that the last best offers were expressed in the rejected contract, the arbitrator simply stamped the contract as approved, as she thought she was required to do, and that was the end of the case. Under the present state of law, any rejection of a contract under a stipulated agreement, in his mind, was a useless exercise, and any further resolution that the Council might want to consider is up to the Council, which would be to try to get the general assembly delegation from the City to try to make a change in this law to give the City some real impact where there is a rejection of the contract. Mr. Cicciarello said that in the present state of affairs, it was less than zero.

Mr. Wein said that in the motion where the wording said that the Mayor and the Council should know “as soon as,” it can’t be “as soon as,” the Council should have the notification at the exact same time. Mr. Bondi asked for clarification of his statement. Mr. Wein said that the wording shouldn’t say that the Council and Mayor get notified “as soon as,” it should say that they receive it in a certain period of time so that they are not five days late. He said he thoroughly agreed that the Council members sometimes get the notifications very late and don’t have the chance to really explore and review them in order to make the decisions they are supposed to be making. He felt they should be getting things with enough time to review them. Mr. Wein asked who on the Council pays enough attention to make sure the members get these notifications within the twenty-five or thirty-day time limits. He stated that Mr. Cicciarello has indicated this is the second time that something like this has happened, and asked if this wasn’t something the Council should be alerted to.

Mr. Cicciarello said the Common Council acted timely two years ago, but he couldn’t say how it happened that they did so. He said that under the Statute the negotiated agreement is sent to the Town Clerk and the Board of Education, who may have, two years ago, sent the Council a copy that prepared the Council to go forward. Mr. Cicciarello stated he could not say what had happened this year. He stated that the fact of the matter is that the contract goes to the Town Clerk; the Town Clerk then notifies, and there is no statutory obligation for the Town Clerk to notify the Council, as he had indicated earlier, which was the reason he suggested the resolution be proposed that Mr. Krummel had proposed at the beginning of the meeting.

Mr. Wein questioned that once the Town Clerk gets the contract, nobody else knows about it and it just gets filed. Mr. Cicciarello said yes, unless the parties involved send copies to the City, that’s the way it goes. Mr. Bondi stated that in this case the people who were copied on this contract were Ms. Rosa Murray, as Chairman of the Board of Education; Mr. Bruce Mellion, President of the Federation; the Town Clerk, and the Finance Director. Mr. Wein said so there was no way anyone on the Council could have been alerted. Mr. Bondi replied, no, unless one of those four people alerted the Council, and at this time the Council was making a resolution to advise the Town Clerk to now alert them.

Ms. Bain stated that, since the Town Clerk’s office is where the documents go, the Council should be notified of any contracts at all times, City contracts as well as Board of Education contracts, because the Council is asked to take a stand on City contracts, and they ought to be getting the information in sufficient time to do an intelligent analysis of them. She said that even though the time has passed on whether they can make a decision or take a vote on this particular contract, from the information that was mailed to the Council members by the Finance Department, analyzing the settlements made in this award with the Board of Education, she felt was in a fair range, the Board of Education was contributing a larger amount of the cost of the insurance and their wage increase is comparable to the settlements that were given for the last ten years of municipal contracts. She said if they had gotten the notification in enough time to vote, she would have voted in favor of it because she felt it was a fair settlement.

Mr. Bondi stated the Council should vote on the resolution that was before them. Mr. Cicciarello asked if there was anything else to add to the resolution. Mr. Bondi asked the secretary to read the resolution back to the Council. The secretary did so.

Mr. Krummel said there was further wording that had been added regarding the contract and more detail on the type of settlement they had been discussing. Mr. Bondi asked Mr. Krummel to restate his resolution.

** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL RESOLVES THAT ANY SETTLEMENT, ARBITRATION OR OTHERWISE, THAT THE CONTRACT BE FORWARDED TO THE MAYOR’S OFFICE AND THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT’S OFFICE, IN ADDITION TO THE TOWN CLERK.

Mr. Bondi questioned that Mr. Krummel’s motion included any contract, not just for the Board of Education contracts. Mr. Krummel agreed, saying any contract or negotiation.

Ms. Bain added that as an amendment or clarification, that notification be made to the Mayor’s office and Council President within two days of being filed with the Town Clerk. Mr. Krummel said that what he really wanted was to have the Mayor’s office and the Council President copied, just as in this particular case, as the Town Clerk and the Chairman of the Board of Education were copied. Ms. Bain asked if that was according to the State Statute? Mr. Krummel said the Statute didn’t state the number of people to be copied. Mr. Cicciarello said this was a resolution directed at the Town Clerk. Mr. Bondi agreed and said it was outside of the statute.

The resolution was finalized as:

** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL RESOLVES THAT ANY SETTLEMENT, ARBITRATION OR OTHERWISE, THE CONTRACT BE FORWARDED TO THE MAYOR’S OFFICE AND THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT’S OFFICE, IN ADDITION TO THE TOWN CLERK, WITHIN TWO DAYS OF BEING FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK.

Mr. Bondi asked if everyone understood the resolution as it now stood. There was general agreement. Mr. Bondi asked for a vote by a show of hands.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Here’s what’s going to happen next. The BOE will come back with a budget reflecting increased spending, and then say well you can’t cut anything back because they are contractually obligated to pay out salaries and benefits. Which they negotiated! Or not, as the budget scapel was not out at all.

The only thing the Common Council can do is set the budget cap low enough to offset� this outrageous contract. The only thing you can do is hope that your taxes aren’t going to go up by 3.5% because the BOE was once again rubber stamping contracts without heed to the fiscal realities facing the taxpayers.

http://www.MGeake.org MGeake

Give some of us credit: the vote was 1-9-4.

Problem was, we needed 10 “no” votes to reject an arbitration award.

But we don’t need to wait for next year’s budget “negotiations”; the BoE is a frequent “guest” of the Finance and Land Use committees, and I am a member of both.
Vet Park Junkie

TG, “fiscal realities facing the taxpayers” might be a tad too easy for some readers to gloss over. I was at a kid’s event last night. While chatting with the parents in the parking lot, we learned that 60% were laid off. Like in without an income, forget the guaranteed raise… and no health benefits guaranteed for five years. WTF?

Perhaps the Hour could do a poll along the lines of “Do you expect to be unemployed before the end of the year?” Then we might get a better view of what Norwalk’s fiscal realities are?
Anonymous

You want to cut significant money from what is paid to administrators? Cut some of the elementary assistant principals, and close one elementary school.

Then cut the executive assistant to the superintendent. Norwalk taxpayers cannot afford this.
Anonymous

Why not ask the Advocate instead of The Hour and get a non bias reporter that can submit an article and not have it sent back.

I know as a family even with full employment we are faced with some tough decisions,but we are all reminded of the taxes all this development is going to bring in to fix our current city woes.Where the city has spent a great deal on preparing for construction this money has been well spent.When are we expected a return on our investment?
Kurm Udgeon

I think that the point is that neither the BOE or the council have any balls or backbone to fix this runaway train of spending by this school administration. Why the hell don’t the voters of this city stand up to these twinkies and either throw them out or demand that they fix this. How can this contract stand as submitted? With unemployment higher then in 1991, and the State and Federal Governments in deep doo doo, this contract is an insult to those of us who don’t get the civil service perks with no accountability. The Norwalk school system is a bastion of non-achievement and overbloated administrators collecting their checks for letting the inmates run the asylum. It’s time for a change.
Anonymous

Can someone please tell me why some of the council people abstained from voting on this important issue when it is as Mr. Hempstead said, something Norwalk cannot afford?
Bondi N Brown A Geake N McQuaid N Sutton Y(what’s he thinking?)Bonenfant N Serasis A Bolden A Hilliard N Lindstrom A Hempstead N Straniti N
Conroy N Krummel N and of course Kydes a no show. These are the very same people that we the taxpayers/voters put in their present positions to protect the interest of US, the taxpayers/voters. Next we’ll hear the usual “We have to cut important programs” and how will these people vote on that? Come on, grow a pair and do the right thing. The economy is in bad shape and you people want to give the administrators Carte Blanche? Guess we need to rethink our votes next time!
Vet Park Junkie

Wow, it took a half hour before we descended into Hour bashing. I wasn�t expecting that until later this afternoon. An article is not the same as a poll. I suggested the Hour for the poll because I don�t care about the demographics of Stamford. Look at the Advocate polls; they are the same for the Stamford Advocate and the Norwalk Advocate. While the Hour does include neighboring towns, I can live with including their data for the purposes of indicating what is happening in Norwalk.

Oh, MGeake and other members who voted to reject, thank you for your votes on this issue.
Anonymous

I can’t believe that the contract was not rejected by the BOE elected for reform. Jack you let us down.
http://www.MGeake.org MGeake

I just received the following e-mail:

I want to apologize for my absence last night. As I had advised Ms. McCabe, I had every intention of being at the meeting but a last minute emergency came up and I had to wait for a call to see if I had to leave for home to take care of my son. The call came at 6:15 and I did have to leave.

I meant no disrespect and I hope the committee and Council will excuse my absence.

Sal

Salvatore J. Corda, Ph.D
Superintendent of Schools
Norwalk Public Schools
125 East Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06852
203-854-4001
203-838-3299 (Fax)

What is interesting about this explanation is that at 5:50, my wife passed Room 231 and saw Sal take delivery of food and drink for some sort of meeting that was not on the calendar. Not that he couldn’t have gotten the call on his cell phone, but clearly he had another meeting at the same time the Personnel Committee was reviewing the contract. And he could have gotten word to either the committee or the full council meeting two hours later that he had been called away.

I’m sorry, but this expalnation just plain smells fishy.
turfgrrl

MGeake: Thanks for the update. I can add that his car was not in his space at 7:30 ish when I got to City Hall last night. I’ll also note that the elected members of the Plainville BOE managed to show up to their council hearings to explain how good they did on the stipulated agreement they served up.
concerned citizen

As a teacher, I would never want to be an administrator. The hours they work are grueling. Some administrators are weak and should’ve been pushed out years ago, but sadly, the good administrators often make up for the bad ones. Moreover they don’t have tenure like teachers do, so its merely people covering up for others. In general the administrators I see work hard, diligently and often from early morning to early evening (7 to 7), with BOE, PTO and a whole set of other meetings regularly even later at night. The money they make based on their work experience and education is generally a fraction of what people of similar status jobs receive in the private sector. I suggest that anyone who thinks administrators are bloated and overpaid spend a day shadowing them.
Kurm Udgeon

#11, I’m sure that there are good administrators as well as bloated and overpaid ones. However, why should the school budget not have to share the pain of every other part of this society and take their hit. This isn’t a recession of everybody but those that work in the school system. This is everyones recession, and it is amazing that those of you that work in the school system think that you are any more entitled then the rest of us and should be immune from the pain. How would you like to be put on a system that measures your performance vis a vis the performance of the students you teach? All of the rest of us would love to hide behind a wall of unionized protection called tenure, but unfortunately, we have to perform our jobs to an irrational and undefined standard set by those who pay us.
More importantly, the BOE has failed this city miserably and have gone back on their words to be watchdogs. Sound familiar Jack?
Anonymous

We have turned the asylum over to the lunatics!
I hope your pocket is deep enough to pay for all this BLOATED do-nothing administration.
Anonymous

The Hour is printing Moccia Money fear not Norwalks pockets are deep.
Anonymous

Sorry to burst your bubbles, folks, but as long as you keep electing them and as long as you keep allowing them to get away with things like this, the BS will never end. Stop sitting at home in front of the TV and get out there and create some peaceful disturbances, march in protest, start a letter-writing campaign, show up en masse at these city meetings and make your displeasure HEARD instead of plopping yourself in front of your computer and complaining where NOBODY can hear you.

You�re not going to make them change the status quo if you are not out there getting in their faces every single day. Staying at home and blogging isn�t gonna do it for you.

The next Common Council meeting is in 2 weeks. Every single person who is disgusted with this BOE mess and complaining on this blog should PLAN to be there at that meeting IN PERSON. Make your anger heard, or this is going to be crammed down our throats just like the last one was. Get NOISY, people!
Educator

All of the comments here are great. But truthfully: Is there a real way to trim the amount of administrators that we have? It seems that it’s always the educators that get cut first, never the administrators.

As we look at other companies, we see them cutting back. I know for a fact that Norwalk Hospital laid off many people. Here it is – a people services industry and they have trimmed a lot. We can, too, but it won’t be the big wigs. And #11, you’re right with many administrators, but you know, and it’s been said – there are some who enter the building when they’re supposed to, and some don’t even finish on time. They leave very early.

But back to my question: How could we get rid of them? What’s the process?
Anonymous

It’s called “firing”. You do it by walking up to someone and telling them to GET OUT.
Anonymous

#17: Given tenure, the fair dismissal process and additional protections afforded by contracts, firing is a very slow and expensive process. You may feel catharsis in saying what you did, but that isn’t a viable option in many cases.

For administrators who deserve to be fired, the BOE needs a well documented case. For a well documented case, the BOE needs an effective central office. Need I say more?
Arnold

If the City’s having a budget problem and they want to reduce the “excess”, then they could do what many other corporations have done. Eliminate because there’s no money. But I guess that doesn’t happen in the Board of Ed upper division, where they could figure out a way to keep “their” people there, but get rid of teachers.

Now, could the mayor do this to some of those higher upper people? It happens everywhere else.

Do a clean sweep, and if these people want to stay in Norwalk at the schools, have them go to the classroom and teach! (For the salary the teachers make, with their lunch times and all the duties that go along with it!)
Anonymous

I know people who used to work at City Hall, and even though they were great employees, their jobs were de-funded and they were out of work.

Can’t the mayor see fit to de-fund the BOE?
Anonymous

The mayor has absolutely no control over how the BOE uses its budget; that’s a matter of law. He cannot eliminate positions and he cannot fire BOE employees. He and the common council do determine the total budget given to the BOE, but cutting may not have the results the mayor and council and public want to see.
Vet Park Junkie

Eliminating jobs is one way to reduce expenses. What really makes me worry is the health benefits for 5 years for those who leave the system. Who gets that? It’s not that it isn’t nice or noble; but if you look into private industry it sure isn’t market. Do Brown, Sutton, Serasis, Bolden & Lindstrom honestly think that it�s okay to stuff the city�s future liabilities with out-of-market benefits for past employees? Do they know what happens?

Geake, any estimates of the annual costs for these benefits floating around, yet? It might help the conversation to know how many people would need to be wacked to match the cost of this contract.
Educator

To #22:

Health benefits for whom? The teachers or administrators? If you’re talking about teachers, we pay into that and need it, even afterwards. We do not collect social security, but I might misconstruing your comments, so could you clarify your comments for all who’re reading?

Thanks!
Arnold

I still say get rid of those administrators somehow. They’re the same bunch that tries to get rid of many teachers – good or bad – and messes with their schedules without any form of reprisals on themselves, as though teachers were crap under their shoes. It’s a crime! What I’ve heard from the teachers I know, oh, it could grow hair back on my balding head!

The public MUST be made aware of these administrators who are just like incandescent light bulbs – they’re draining our finances. Just get rid of the unnecessary ones – assistant principals on the elementary level, those crisis intervention aides in the elementary schools, give the authoirity of these 2 posts back to the principal (make them earn the cash) and that’s it. As for these clowns who would lose their job, well, go back and teach. Find a classroom job. For the intervention aides – a corections facility job.
Vet Park Junkie

Educator, Certainly! I was reacting to the first paragraph of the post that has, “health benefits for administrators who leave the system for 5 years post employment plus their spouses.”
http://www.MGeake.org MGeake

#22: Estimates? Analysis? We got nothing!!!
Anonymous

The administrators’ contract is nothing when compared to the contract the same BOE negotiated with the superintendent about two years ago. He gave health benefits to the superintendent and his wife not for five years, but for life. They also gave him a huge life insurance policy.

I’m concerned about one thing: Does this contract give the medical benefits to any administrator, regardless of years of seniority? Does it give the medical benefits to any administrator, even if the administrator is not retiring, but is merely leaving to take another job?

Most people out here in the world of responsibility have lost medical benefits, but Norwalk has found a way to increase them. Until now, no spouse of a BOE employee (with the notable exception of Dr. Corda) has gotten medical benefits after the employee’s retirement.
Anonymous

Jody B-P must go!
Very detrimental to the Norwalk taxpayer.
Kurm Udgeon

MGeake,

Would you say that the council has done their job in this case? Have you taken the responsibility which has been entrusted to you seriously? How can a motion or bill with ONE yes vote pass. How can the council allow four members to abstain? When will you people begin to show some fiscal understanding and not just fight among yourselves and tow your party or factions lines? And where was the BOE in this process?
Anonymous

#28: She hasn’t been the chair of the BOE for a long time.
Vet Park Junkie

Geake, I understood that but I like your post in #26. I’m interpreting it as incredulous wrath, the only reasonable response.

What could those who abstained possibly have been thinking? Are they sheep who were intimidated by Corda, the Borg? To paraphrase the final Corda quote in today’s Hour, “Resistance is futile.”
Anonymous

Kurm,

Where was the BOE? You’re talking about the same BOE that:
1. allowed Opdahl’s antics for years
2. gave Lang incredible amounts of money and even had her back for more after her retirement, all despite her poor performance on the job
3. gave Corda an unbelievably generous contract, despite poor district performance
4. hired Daddona over McCain, despite McCain’s academic and educational credentials, as well as his proven performance in school improvement
5. until recently, allowed the superintendent to call all of the shots

There is so much more but you get the point.
Anonymous

Here in Norwalk piss poor performance has its rewards!
http://www.MGeake.org MGeake

Kurm Udgeon:

Would I say that the council has done their job in this case? The problem in this case is that state law stacks the deck against a municipality’s legislative body: an arbitration award takes effect unless the legislative body rejects it within a very short time. We got the document late Friday afternoon; I will assume that, like I, the other members spent the weekend reviewing it along with everything else in that packet (I also had a Finance Committee packet containing tens of millions in projects to review); and we had an item that would go into effect tomorrow unless rejected.

Have I taken the responsibility which has been entrusted to you seriously? I voted against it, didn’t I?

How can a motion or bill with ONE yes vote pass? Two-thirds of the legislative body must vote to reject an arbitration award; for Norwalk, this means there must be ten votes to reject. Wednesday, only nine of us voted to reject, meaning — under state law — the arbitration award stands.

How can the council allow four members to abstain? How exactly do you propose that I control how another member votes?!?

When will you people begin to show some fiscal understanding and not just fight among yourselves and tow your party or factions lines? Come to the Land Use and Building Management meeting next Thursday. There are seven BoE items on our agenda, and none of them takes two-thirds to reject.

And where was the BOE in this process? Nowhere to be seen.
Anonymous

What are the BOE items on the Land Use/Bldg Management agenda?
http://www.MGeake.org MGeake

1. Norwalk High School Improvement Project � Culinary Arts Center

�a. Authorize the Mayor, Richard A. Moccia, to execute a contract with Gennarini Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the Culinary Arts Center at Norwalk High School for a total amount not to exceed $385,000.00. Acct. #09045010 5777 B0310

b. Authorize the NFCC to issue change orders on Contract for a total not to exceed $30,800.00.

c. Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue Purchase Orders to ________ for the supply of kitchen equipment for the Culinary Arts Center at Norwalk High School for a total not to exceed _________. Acct. # 09045010 5777 B0310.�

2. Nathan Hale Middle School Improvement Project
�Authorize the Mayor, Richard A. Moccia, to execute an amendment to Silver Petrucelli and Associates architectural/ engineering design services contract for the Nathan Hale Middle School Project, in order to increase the current hazardous material monitoring allowance by $10,284.17 for additional monitoring services associated with the abatement phase for the project. Acct #0904-5010-5777-B0316�.

…

B. Board of Education � IT Department

1. �a. Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue Purchase Orders to Total Communications for the purchase and installation of a new Cisco Phone System for Roton Middle Middle School for a total not to exceed $111,765.75. Account # 0908/09 5010-5777-C0112

b. Authorize the IT Director of Norwalk Public School to issue change orders on Contract for a total not to exceed $11,176.00�

2. �Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue Purchase Orders to Interoptic Systems for the purchase and installation of cabling for the Cisco Phone System at Roton Middle School for a total not to exceed $5,580. Account # 0908/09 5010-5777-C0112�

3. �Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue Purchase Orders to Hewlett Packard per State of CT Contract for the purchase of 140 laptop computers, model HP-6910p for the Board of Education for a total not to exceed $146,860. Account # 0908/09 5010-5777-C0112�

4. �Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue Purchase Orders to Hewlett Packard per State of CT Contract for the purchase of 4 laptop carts, model HP20 Mobility Cart for the Board of Education for a total not to exceed $9,196.00. Account # 0908/09 5010-5777-C0112�

5. �Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue Purchase Orders to CDWG for the purchase of 6 Multimedia projectors, model Epson 83+ for the Board of Education for a total not to exceed $3,750.00. Account # 0908/09 5010-5777-C0112�
Anonymous

McGeake,

A few questions, the first of which is sarcastic:

Is the culinary arts center made of gold? That is one hell of a lot of money. If Stu had anything to do with the specifications, it’s probably excessive. From what your breakdown says, the dollar amount doesn’t even include the cost of equipment!!! Is this going to be new construction? Do we know with certainty that the state will pay for any of it, since the NHS building already exceeds allowable square footage for the school’s enrollment?
Is the funding for this project within the NHS construction budget, or is this coming from the construction budget of one of the other schools? Or is it going to require a special appropriation?
Do we know that the BOE will even have the money to staff it after it’s been built? They are definitely going to be cutting staff.
http://www.MGeake.org MGeake

I only have the agenda, not the backup material — that was mailed today.
Anonymous

Well, I hope that posting #37 will provide some food for thought during the deliberations — that is, if there are any deliberations. Do you think that the average common council member has any real appreciation of the fact that there are Norwalk taxpayers who are already desperately struggling for economic survival?
anono

For those of you truly interested in this issue, the following is an extract from the minutes of the Common Council of January 10, 2006:
“B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION TO URGE THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO APPROVE
PROPOSED BILL #5258, AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL INTERVENTION
IN CERTAIN ADMINISTRATION PROCEEDINGS.
WHEREAS the Common Council of the City of Norwalk has the responsibility for
funding the services provided to it’s citizens, and
WHEREAS under current State Statutes the Common Council is not a party to the
binding arbitration proceedings resulting from it’s rejection of a contract negotiated
between the Board of Education and a Union representing it’s employees,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council endorses and urges the
State Legislature to approve Bill #5258 An Act Concerning Municipal Intervention in
Certain Administrative proceedings which reads as follows:
That the general statutes be amended to provide that, notwithstanding the provisions of
chapter 113 or 166 of the general statutes, whenever a municipal employer is engaged in
binding arbitration with a municipal employee organization and such employer is not the
legislative body of such municipality; the legislative body of the municipality, or if the
legislative body is a town meeting, the board of selectmen may, by majority vote of the
body, intervene in such arbitration proceedings. Tabled”

Bill # 5258 was introduced by Representative Cafero to overcome the deficiency in state law that prevented the city from participating in an arbitration after it rejected the bloated teacher’s contract in a previous year. The resolution was introduced to get the Council’s backing for that bill. The Council tabled the resolution, without any discussion, because it did not want to do anything constructive on the issue.

The bill never was acted upon by the state legislators because Representative Ryan and Senator Prague, co-chairs of the committee would not even hold hearings on it.
The resolution put before the Common Council in 2006 was an attempt to show the state legislators that the City of Norwalk considered it a real problem that needed dealing with.
But your Council just tabled it, and so it never saw the light of day again.
AS A RULE, REAL ISSUES NEVER DIE, THEY JUST FADE UNTIL THE NEXT TIME! LIKE NOW!!
Anonymous

I guess its time to ask what kind of staff does the council have to research any of this we post about?
Anonymous

Sal Corda and whole BOE disgust me!
WHY do they continue to vote for these outragous contracts??? Have the teacher unions really gotten that deep into the BOE’s pockets??
ENOUGH is ENOUGH !!

We the TAXPAYERS of Norwalk have been screwed again and again. With the economy and the housing market going down the tubes and now a Socialist president and congress in charge of the federal goverment, the future for the country and this city seems dismal at best.
curious about this

#40-I just looked for that particular date on the city website and couldn’t find it. Do you have the link?
Arnold

No offense anonymous, but while I’m feeling “blue”, too, you could do something about this. But first – a Socialist president….who are you talking about? I certainly hope not Obama, but we’ll keep this subject out of this for now. Let’s stay really local. What I say we do is rally at these meetings and make them uncomfortable. I know, I’m guilty of not going myself, because I feel that what’s the power of one? But we become complacent. If we say to them -as a group – that enough’s enough, well, then who knows……? There’s real power in many.

We could all “bitch” on this site, but I will guarantee you that Corda is VERY uncomfortable with many eyes upon him. Let the administrators feel discomfort for a change.

P.S. – if you ARE talking about the new president, let’s not “go there” now while we’re discussing the now of this subject, or it’ll go into other unchartered areas! UGH.
Anonymous

Far be it from me to side with Corda, but he doesn’t get a vote when it comes to contracts with the bargaining units. The BOE alone votes.
Sick of the BS

I find it interesting that these members of the BOE continue to be appointed or put up for election year after year, and they continue to win their seats year after year. Some of those BOE members have been on that board for a decade or longer! I would have thought Jody Bishop-Pullan would have made a chagrined but graceful exit in disgrace after her son took part in that high school yearbook debacle, for one example. And Bruce Kimmel is a joke all by himself. The only thing that would be worse than having Kimmel continue on the BOE would be to have William Krummel added on. There’s another “politico” who should be FORCED to retire.
anono

#43 link requested:

http://www.norwalkct.org/WebPosting/Minutes/CCO/01102006.PDF
anonymous

#46, Problem a lot of times with BOE elections is that no one wants the “job” so no one new runs. It is an incredible amount of hours – meetings run late and while there aren’t that many BOE meetings, there are a lot of committee meetings. And there is a lot of controversy! That is how the same people get elected over and over. On top of that, often terms come up at the same time so you are looking for many people at the same time – how many people were replaced during this election? If you needed one or two each election instead of a large influx, you might be able to get more new people involved. The other problem with replacing an entire board at once is that someone needs to know what the heck they are talking about… I know that may seem like a silly point with some boards but it is supposed to sound legit.
And not to stand up for anyone – but some members have no credentials at all to put them on a board that governs the NPS. When citizens vote, they should be looking at what the person knows about education, not hate for an individual. These are the people who have the bottom line in NPS. It is scary when you think of it in those terms.
Shock

Does the BOE realize that they are losing GOOD teachers because of POOR administrators? The BOE should realize this is a huge problem, including poor performing schools. These administrators are allowed to go unchecked, collect their pay check, and drag the whole town down. Where is the responsibility? Posting after posting indicates this is happening, yet nobody seems to care. What kind of schools does the BOE think they will be left with when all the good teachers leave because they are fed up with working for administrators that care NOTHING about the students? Does the BOE find this acceptable?
anonymous

Luckily, there are still administrators and teachers that care because there are people who have what I call the,”save the world” complex. There are also good teachers and maybe administrators left in Norwalk because it is where they live and have children going to school so it is convenient. Between the two groups, NPS may be saved despite the destructive efforts of the BOE. But you are right #49, many teachers do find it difficult and discouraging to do their jobs because of their building administrator. At the same time, I think many building administrators are frustrated by CO and the BOE because they watch the same poor building administrators getting priority for many things. So where the weakest links should be let go, they are being held in highest esteem in Norwalk. Go figure!!