The NEF (Norwalk Education Foundation) released the November 17th Board of Ed meeting video. See below. Thank you NEF!
BOARD OF ED NOV 17 2009 – Movie 01 from Norwalk Education Foundation on Vimeo.
20 Comments to “November 17th Norwalk Board Of Ed Video”
Leave a Reply
2009 Budget
2010
arts
blog
Blumenthal
Boughton
Brian Lockhart
Bysiewicz
connecticut
Dan Malloy
Dodd
DOT
DTC
Education
Electricity
government
Governor
Haiti
Health Care
Himes
iPhone
Lamont
Legislature
Lieberman
Malloy
McMahon
Media
Murphy
Norwalk
Obama
pot holes
property taxes
Rell
Secretary of State
Senate
Simmons
Steve Collins
Stimulus Money Watch
storm
TARP
taxes
Technology
Transparency
video
Worth Reading
Stay up to date
- Subscribe to the RSS feed
- Subscribe to the feed via email
I watched the whole video and was surprised at first that it wasn’t worse. I thought the speakers presented themselves and their concerns very well. They were not on the attack, they were just simply stating an issue of which to be aware. On the other hand, the one remaining minority board member did not present herself well at all. She stated that she was there to represent one district, which implies she is not there for all children. That is not the message any board member should be sending. Then when one member tried to get a motion to add something to the agenda, she played a little game like she had no idea what he was talking about. She later came clean and admitted she had seen it. That is setting a bad precedent – sneaky, untrustworthy, argumentative. And for the record, she is wrong. A phone call is NOT of public record. An email is a public document. If you are looking for transparency, email is the proper route.
Concerned: I too watched the whole video and observed the exact points that you have highlighted. It was disturbing to here an “elected official” (as she put it) that she had not received or known of any email and then to later reference the email.
I thought it was interesting that she immediately assumed he hadn’t sent it to her. Then she challenged Mr. Colarossi about whether he knew if she had received it. Uh, why would she leap to the conclusion that she was the only one that had not received the email? I understand that AOL has an “Unsend” function (I don’t use AOL) and one that allows a person to track whether or not the addressee has opened an email, but other Web browsers don’t.
Also, why the anger? Why didn’t she just say, “I’m sorry, I didn’t receive it.” Apparently, some of the new members didn’t get their complete packets. It happens. They took it in stride and dealt with it.
Buckle in, folks, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
But Norwalk Spectator, that was all just a lie. She later admitted to having received it. Board members should not be playing games with each other, with central office staff, nor with the public. They were elected to do their best for the children of Norwalk. It is scary to think that is her best. She needs to get over herself and the anger and get on with the task at hand and do it professionally and with dignity. The only one I saw who tried to single her out as a minority on that board was herself. Everyone else treated her as an equal…until she started the games and then it wasn’t about race, it was about trust.
I totally agree with you about Ms. Rivas, Concerned. But I don’t think she saw it as a “lie” but as “making a point”. She wanted everyone to think that she was “excluded” for whatever reason.
I still don’t understand the anger, though. Turfie said in her post below that everything happened at about 44 minutes into the meeting. At that point, the new members had been sworn in only about 40 minutes and had voted on personnel (including the reinstatement of two assistant administrators, which should have made people happy because it would benefit ALL the students), field trips and budget transfers. What was there to be angry about?
WE do NOT need any more assitant administrators– at 100K per iteration– which costs ALL the taxpayers–why is this so difficult to comprehend?
My apologies, Tired, I wrote “assistant administrators” when what I really meant was “Assistant Principals”.
There are WAY too many unnecessary Assistant Principals ripping off the Norwalk taxpayer as it is.
Take a gander at 43:30. Colarossi motions to suspend the rules to add a report to the agenda. After offering to circulate the email in paper format at 44 minutes. Migdalia Rivas and Jodi Bishop-Pullan start the obfuscation. Pullan says that she needs more time before something is added to the agenda. Steven Colarossi offers to withdraw the motion. Let’s keep in mind this was a report that presumably they would discuss. This concludes in the 47-48 minute range. At 48 Rivas admits she saw the email and then preposterously suggests that email is not a good place to discuss issues, and that it should be done by phone call. Phone call! Phone calls are not FOIable Rivas. Put in writing! Way to go Sue Haynie for stating the obvious, that the public is important. By 50:30 Rivas claims that by using email she is not being communicated with. By 52 Rivas makes a claim she is the only board member that represents “our entire community.” WTF. She then goes on to talk about District B.
What is Rivas’ entire community? Hispanic or South Norwalk. Big news Rivas, there are Hispanic speaking people that live in other districts and outside of South Norwalk. And there are many enthniticities that live in South Norwalk.
By 54 minutes the meeting Jack Chiaramonte complains about the bickering. By 102 minutes Chiaramonte gets into a heated vent about the yelling from the audience and comments in the paper.
If Migdalia Rivas and Jodi Bishop-Pullan are so disgruntled they should resign from the BOE and spend their time getting limousine liberals elected to public office.
I am reminded about another last-minute item (although one that may have been on the agenda) when Ms Bishop-Pullan was chair of the board. It was the superintendent’s “let-me-take-Norwalk-taxpayers-for-a-ride-to-clean-out-their-treasury” contract that the board revealed to the public only minutes before approving it. The public had no opportunity to review it or to discuss it, and the board didn’t either.
We are still paying for that debacle…Sal, Stu, and Karen took us for at least a $3 Million ride.
Wondering: I remember. It also explains the panic that they will be treated the same way. This didn’t seem to be a jam-down-the-throat move. Paranoid, eh?
Dumbfounded and Steward: It was a shameful moment because the board had allowed a third-rate superintendent to force them to treat the public with complete disrespect by giving him even more of the public’s money just because he was demanding it.
Does anyone know how much of that contract he got to keep, despite his resignation? I have heard that he may have kept at least some of the obscene benefits, but I don’t have specific information.
Never thought I would start a comment with this,….Interesting article in the Hour today, regarding the committee Colarossi was put on. It would appear that parents are bringing legal counsel to suspension hearings, so my question is, which side started this “ramping up” that is clearly costing us quite alot of money? Maybe it should be decided that the board “ramp it down” and NOT start by bringing the lawyers in….i know that sounds crazeee and maybe just maybe the parents will no longer feel they need to START with litigation to get a fair shake. I just cannot believe that we need to be spending this kind of dough on lawyers.
No wonder law school enrollments are at a record high and math and science scores are in the toilet.
I believe that the parents that are bringing lawyers to the hearings are expulsion hearings, not suspension hearings. The expulsion hearings are overseen by an hearing officer who listens to both parties. The District has a lawyer involved because it is a legal proceeding and run just like it would be in a regular court room.
Watching that video was painful. Hard to believe that someone would subject themselves to the pain of public service here.
Was Rivas the one who was elected by 6 votes? When do we have the opportunity to remove her again? Can’t come soon enough.
She has to go. What a foul mouthed, calculating, shrill, caustic PITA. Can you imagine this lady is trying to dictate curriculum for the whole town based on the demographics of her district alone? WHA?
Also, 3 cheers to Jack who at the end had the guts to rebuke the racist woman at minute 12 who knocks the BOE because they are not of color. Is this stuff for real?
I don’t think I could have stood quiet if I was there. The video thing is good, maybe it will make people think a bit more before they open their traps.
Rivas was not on the most recent ballot because her term is not yet up. I think that someone said on an earlier thread, that Rivas was on the ballot in 2006. If that’s true, and it’s a four year term, then come next November, well, you’ll have your chance to make your choice known. Do not despair, that gives you a whole 9 months to find a candidate for the Board that you think could do a good job. Who knows, it might even be you! It also gives her a whole twelve months to continue her antics.
Hello! I like your srticle and I would like evry abundant to read some addde information on this issue. Will you column some mor?e
—-
signature: http://renaiaaancec.livejournal.com