By Bruce Kimmel

Norwalk school officials are in the midst of a detailed analysis of this past year’s CMT and CAPT tests. So far, based on preliminary discussions, it seems the district has been treading water; improvement in some areas, regression in others. It does appear, however, that there has been some improvement in closing the achievement gap.

Now that we have a new Superintendent, I believe it would be worthwhile to look at these test results differently than in the past. In recent years, most discussions of CMT scores have focused on the percentages of students in different categories and then comparing these percentages to past years. For instance, if the percentage of fourth graders at the proficiency or goal levels increased, the district would conclude that there has been improvement.

Continue Reading

By Bruce Kimmel

ACT I: The Board of Estimate Applauds the Teachers

Scene 1: October 2009. About 20 people gather in room 231 of Norwalk’s City Hall. The Interim Superintendent of Schools speaks to members of the Board of Estimate and Taxation. He outlines the recent contract agreement between the Board of Education and the Norwalk Federation of Teachers. The teachers have agreed to salary increases that average, over a three year period beginning September 2010, roughly 1.5%. They have also agreed to changes in their medical benefits that will save the city a considerable amount of money. The health insurance changes kick in January 2010, saving the city additional funds, perhaps as much as $1 million. The Interim Superintendent notes that these savings will offset the salary increases and thus the net cost of the contract is zero.

Continue Reading

By Bruce Kimmel

Reading the comic strip “Dilbert,” by Scott Adams (May 28, 2010) reminded me of the Norwalk Public School System. The strip goes like this:

In the first panel, Wally, an engineer always looking for ways to avoid work, tells the Boss, “I’m exhausted from all the basic research I’m doing.”

In the next panel, Wally turns to Dilbert and states, “It’s too bad that the value of my work won’t be quantifiable for another ten years.”

In the final panel, the Boss tells Wally, “I’d like to see your lab report.”

Wally responds with a question, “So… The new rule is that we write down stuff?”

Reading the strip reminded me of the recent scandal that focused on the hiring of service providers for children with autism. After weeks of stonewalling FOI requests from a variety of sources, including the parents of autistic children, it turned out there was no paper trail of what actually happened. In fact, it wasn’t even clear who was supposed to sign off on the bogus timesheets and payments.

Despite the seriousness of the scandal, it reflected a basic Dilbertian axiom, not to mention a basic rule of law: You can’t violate policies and procedures that do not exist.

To follow this line of reasoning further: If Central Office departments are allowed to devolve into a quagmire of inconsistent, conflicting, amorphous, or even non-existent procedures and policies, it becomes next to impossible to figure out who is to blame for whatever takes place in the school system. Thus, it becomes extremely difficult to determine how a substitute teacher can be removed from one school because of bizarre behavior only to be later assigned to another school, at which the same type of behavior soon surfaced again. And the long delay in addressing a situation in which high school students were put in harm’s way is even more inexplicable.

There are generally two types of tactics used to protect and perpetuate these types of Disorganizations. The first is to call in a lawyer who specializes in prolonging – in the name of protecting against potential litigation – these types of messes. These lawyers are good at providing conservative, narrowly conceived, and occasionally contradictory legal advice designed to either stop everything in its tracks and/or allegedly protect the system from a one-in-ten-thousand-chance lawsuit five or ten years down the road. The second is the time-honored tactic of ignoring conflict of interest concerns in order to appoint a member of the Disorganization to conduct an Investigation. Why not? Who better to navigate their way through the quagmire than someone familiar with its vagaries?

For those who prefer Kafka to Scott Adams (I like them both and, in the name of full disclosure, I should admit that I’ve always admired Dagwood and his office pals), imagine the proverbial water cooler somewhere in Central Office. Further imagine some highly paid Department Heads plotting ways to protect their broken system. Dollars to donuts they would focus on the budget, whose axe is their greatest fear.

The great Protector of the Disorganization, the equivalent of the Dilbertian Boss, is the Superintendent. And true to form, every budget season, when the public is clamoring, even pleading, that cuts not be made in the schools, the Superintendent steps to the microphone and announces that Central Office Administrators will not be cut. Consider the actions of Corda and Nast, when each was faced with the prospect of cutting roughly five million from a Board of Education approved operating budget.

Several years ago, the BOE – me included, I am sad to say, but that was before I stopped trusting the Protector of the Disorganization – approved a 7.8% increase in spending. The Board of Estimate quickly reduced it to a 3.8% increase. At the time, the city was scrambling to find all the lose change it could in order address flooding problems in various neighborhoods that were causing major personal and financial hardship to Norwalk residents.

Faced with the prospect of reducing the budget by about $5 million, the Protector of the Disorganization boldly announced – in what was obviously a game of bluff with the city – that Administrators, especially his buddies on the third floor of City Hall, would not be cut. Instead, the reductions would have to come from the Hinterlands, those unfamiliar areas of Norwalk where the schools are located. The Protector repeatedly disseminated a list of programs that students and their parents dearly love, and threatened to cut them if the BET did not rescind the 3.8% directive.

But the Protector’s bluff was called. The BET did not blink. And lo and behold, the following year not a single program had been cut. Employing some sort of fiscal magic, enough money seemed to materialize out of nowhere. And, of course, the Disorganization was protected. In fact, because of retirements and natural attrition, not a single person actually lost their job in the entire system.

A few years later Nast – an Interim Protector but clearly someone who took the same Professional Development courses as Corda – also faced the need to find $5 million to reconcile the budget. He set out to protect the Denizens of the Disorganization by announcing that Central Office department heads could not be cut because they were the ones who had to implement and monitor mandates from the state. And, bluff time once again, he laid out a list of cuts that would have to be made in the Hinterlands.

This past April, clearly fighting a losing battle, the Interim Protector produced a one-page document that delineated ways to reconcile the budget. The Denizens were not mentioned, but among the expendable programs was what used to be considered a budgetary trump card: All-day Kindergarten. No comment necessary.

But the Disorganization now faces an additional threat: Scandals. When the Scandals surfaced, the Interim Protector moved quickly and announced that the Denizens had done their jobs well and, by implication, that they should not be held accountable. A few days later, despite his initial proclamation, he announced that one of the Denizens would begin an Investigation of the situation. Finally, a few days after that, the lawyers stepped in and, not surprisingly, stopped the Investigation cold. Kafka would love it.

Irony of ironies: In this day and age, when Accountability is the buzzword when it comes to teachers and students, how come these types of Disorganizations and their Denizens are getting what amounts to a free pass?

Scott Adams picked the wrong venue when he created “Dilbert.”

By David McCarthy

Abraham Lincoln said that truth is the best vindication against slander…and no one believes that more than I do.  Someone else said “Believe those who are seeking the truth” and so I always tend to stop and lend an ear to those that are trying to shed light on issues.  The recent administrative quashing of the investigation into the handling of complaints against Norwalk teachers accused of inappropriate behavior with students goes against these maxims as well as common sense.

Is it possible in the 21^st Century that anyone could possibly believe that shuffling problems off to another school or turning a blind eye to misconduct is acceptable?  Even if that is not the case, what harm can come from looking into the standards and procedures in place with the mindset towards enforcing or improving them?  If anyone thinks that an administrative procedure review or audit of staff actions is going to interfere with a police investigation…please tell me how.  No one asks administrators to be psychic and prevent all issues, however, procedures are or should be there to guide their subsequent actions.

Parents are outraged, the Board of Education is (for the most part) outraged…and Steve Colarossi has laid it on the line to demand action.  I for one am foursquare behind him.  Legalities and niceties are nothing in comparison with the need for action.  We cannot let this problem fester over a summer vacation in the hopes that it will go away.  We must, for our children and the sake of the institutions and teachers we entrust them to daily, look into this issue deeply and thoroughly.

Truth is mighty and will prevail.  Whatever issues are standing in the way of this review must fall in its path.  We are greeting a new Superintendent of Schools…let us greet her with the knowledge that we do not hold secrets, we do not suborn misconduct or allow it to remain hidden once discovered.  I have no knowledge of the procedures in place, nor their shortcomings.  I have no idea whether there was misconduct on anyone’s part and hope there wasn’t.  However, no issue of this sensitivity benefits from being buried.  We have myriad examples of administrators in public and religious organizations unknowingly furthering the cause of evil by ignoring their responsibilities…let us ensure that can’t happen in Norwalk, whatever the cost.

I would hope that whatever barriers are preventing this discussion from occurring disappear or are helped to disappear by the concerned parents of Norwalk.

David McCarthy

Norwalk, CT

By Bruce Kimmel

The Norwalk Board of Education has come a long way the last few years, but there is still some unfinished business that needs to be addressed. To fully appreciate how much the BOE has improved its operations in recent times, consider the following:

Three years ago, its Finance and Curriculum Committees rarely held meetings, and when they did meet the general public was not properly notified in advance. At the time, Board members felt that posting a piece of paper on a bulletin board in City Hall was, to paraphrase one member, all that was required under FOI.

I recall being notified by the former superintendent that the Finance Committee would be holding a meeting to begin reconciling the operating budget. The meeting was to be held in his office, which was much too small for the public to fit into. After I notified PTO leaders and the press about the meeting, it was changed to a larger room.

At that meeting, the superintendent gave committee members handouts with proposals on how the budget might be reconciled. Trouble started when a reporter and members of the public asked if they, too, could have copies of the handouts.

Unbelievably, the committee was divided on whether to allow the press and the public to have copies. It was suggested that the documents would not be fully understood, that they would be distorted, that rumors would start to spread, etc. Fortunately, the committee chairman reluctantly decided it would “probably” be better to give them out.

But times have changed. Today, Board committees regularly meet, the public is involved in the discussions, and better efforts are made to conform to the spirit of FOI instead of its minimal requirements. Nonetheless, there are a number of significant issues that need to be addressed, especially when the new superintendent begins work. One of those issues is the reorganization of Central Office, particularly the Finance Department.

About two years ago, soon after its committees began meeting, the Board commissioned an audit of that department in order to determine whether the district needed a full-time Finance Director with status equal to a deputy superintendent. After a lengthy discussion of the audit, the Board agreed that such a position was indeed needed, but because of budgetary constraints it was never able to begin the reorganization.

I believe it would be a good idea, after this year’s operating budget is finalized, for the Finance Committee to revisit the audit and look into the organization of that extremely important department. I am sure the new superintendent will have some ideas of her own on how this might be achieved.

(It should be noted that, as part of the discussion two years ago, the Finance Committee received information from a variety of Connecticut districts, and Norwalk was the only one without a full-time director devoted solely to finances.)

Another issue that needs to be discussed pertains to the work of the Curriculum Committee. When that committee began meeting, each month we would receive interesting reports from Central Office personnel about various initiatives, test scores, and plans for the future. All of which was interesting, but somehow beside the point. My main concern was: What exactly is going on in classrooms across the district?

During my time on the Board, I often had questions that were never answered to my satisfaction at either Curriculum Committee meetings or meetings of the full Board. For instance: Were math initiatives consistently implemented in classrooms across the district? Were libraries in elementary and middle school classrooms designed so students at different reading levels could easily find appropriate books? Were formal and informal assessments properly used to organize instruction in all the schools?

My concern with these kinds of questions emerged soon after I joined the BOE. A Central Office official briefed the Board on an inexpensive and relatively simple initiative regarding middle school classroom libraries. A year or two later, the same initiative was again presented to the Board. When I mentioned that we had heard it during a previous school year, he talked about the difficulty of changing old habits.

This is a touchy issue. So before continuing, in the name of full disclosure, let me say that I am a teacher in New York City and for twenty years taught fourth grade. Officials from every level of the system often visited my classroom during the school day, occasionally at night. I had no problem with that; there was ample evidence throughout the room that I was implementing the major components of the curriculum. I should add that most of the time I had no idea my classroom was going to be visited.

Thus, an out-of-the-box proposal for the Curriculum Committee: Information should be provided on what exactly to look for when visiting a school or classroom. Any number of consultants, state officials, etc., could provide brief tutorials on the subject. Then, committee members should regularly visit schools and classrooms after hours. Although some might argue that Board members would be micromanaging the schools and usurping the role of principals, if done properly this charge could be avoided.

One of the main findings of both the Cambridge and CREC reports is that there is extremely poor communication between Norwalk’s Central Office and the schools and, as a consequence, among the different schools. One way to address this problem is for Board members to make sure what they are presented by Central Office personnel is actually being implemented in the schools.

The Right Smoke Detector Saves Lives

By Mike Ward

While I was driving my son to school, I heard a news piece on the radio. The Bridgeport Firefighter’s�Union�was teaming up with Domino’s Pizza to check existing smoke detectors and install new ones at customer homes on Friday’s. While this is admirable, my fear is that they will use inferior smoke detectors.

There are two different technologies used in smoke/fire detection. The first and most commonly purchased or given out is the Ionization technology. The second and newer technology is the Photo-electric principle. When I was a Supervising Fire Inspector with the New York City Fire Department, I studied the use and effects of both types. Let’s look at each individually:

Ionization smoke detectors use an ionization chamber and a source of ionizing radiation (Americium 241) to detect smoke. This type of smoke detector is more common because it is inexpensive and better at detecting the smaller amounts of smoke produced by flaming fires. Smoke entering the ionization chamber disrupts the electrical current causing it to go into alarm. It can be identified by the nuclear hazard trefoil icon on the backside of the device.

Photo-electric smoke detectors uses a beam of light and a sensor set at 90 degrees from one another in its smoke chamber. Smoke particles cause the light to scatter and reflect the light onto the sensor causing an alarm.

There are 4 stages to a fire:

1. Incipient stage – No visible smoke, no flame and very little heat. A significant amount of invisible (but sometimes smell-able) combustion particles may be created. This stage usually develops slowly.
2. Smoldering stage – Smoke, but no flame and little heat.
3. Flame Stage – Visible flame, more heat, often less or no smoke, particularly with flammable liquids and gas fires.
4. Large amounts of heat, flame, smoke and toxic gases are produced. The transition from the previous stage can be very fast. This is also where Flashover can occur.

The Ionization (or ion smoke detector for short) is designed to detect a rapidly moving Flame Stage fire while the Photo-electric detects slow Smoldering Stage fires.

Most home fire fatalities occur due to products of combustion (Smoke inhalation) and asphyxiation which occurs when the fire consumes all the oxygen in the room. The thermal burns are a secondary cause and are either due to incapacitation by products of combustion or by exposure to a flashover. According the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of fires in 2008 on average, 1 fatality occurred every 151 minutes and injury occurred every 31 minutes. 4 out of 5 of these fatalities occurred in the home.

What this means is that by the time the Ion detector activated, the room was already filled with toxic gases and smoke, the oxygen levels have been depleted and the victim is showing signs of hypoxia (lack of oxygen), carbon monoxide poisoning or both and is incapable of rational though process.

Most stores carry the Ion detector for homeowner installation. They are widely available at any hardware store or home center and are relatively inexpensive. The problem with Ion detectors is they only detect burnt toast and generate what is called nuisance alarms. After the second or third one, most people disconnect them. Underwriters Laboratories actually lowered the sensitivity standard to prevent these false alarms.

By writing this I am not saying that the Ion detector is bad, they do have a purpose. I do not believe though, that it is the right detector for residential use. Any edge you can get to wake you and your family up earlier is worth the money spent.

Professional security contractors such as ADT, Slomin’s, Brinks Home Security etc. use and install the photo-electric detector into integrated home security systems. They are also available from home centers as a “single station detector” but you have to look for them or special order them. The other downside is they are a little more expensive.

A third choice is a combination detector. It employs either Ion/ Photo, Ion/ Carbon Monoxide, or Photo-electric/ Carbon Monoxide detectors.

In�Connecticut, smoke detectors are required in all bedrooms with 1 additional detector being installed on each level of a home. Carbon Monoxide detectors are also required on each level of new construction homes and outside each bedroom area. Detectors should�Never be installed in or within 3’ of a kitchen or bathroom containing a shower. Always follow the manufacturer’s instructions to the letter. If you have questions, contact the manufacturer, your fire department’s bureau of fire prevention or a licensed security professional.

Maintenance should not be forgotten either. According to manufacturer’s instructions, detectors of either technology should be tested monthly. Canned “smoke” can be purchases from hardware stores or home centers to test the device. Follow the detector instructions and the instructions on the can. This can be done in conjunction with a monthly home fire drill. Detectors should also be replaced after 10 years. You don’t keep your TV that long and it won’t save your life. A final word on testing: If you have an integrated home security system, call your monitoring center prior to testing the detectors so that they don’t dispatch the fire department on you.

Full scale smoke detector reaction time test of the differences between Ion and Photo-electric was conducted by the Barre City VT Fire Department. This video can be seen at either�www.barrecityfire.org or�www.smokealarminfo.com

The Best Social Program Is A Job

By Senator Toni Boucher

It has been said that “the best social program is a job”. �With Connecticut’s unemployment rate increasing to 9.2 %, reestablishing a fertile environment for job creation is essential to restoring prosperity to our state. It is people, not government, that create jobs.

However, the General Assembly’s Finance Committee spent its last day of work for this legislative session passing several bills that sent a hostile message to Connecticut’s business community. Among other things, these proposals call for:

• Raising the estate tax rate to between 14.8 percent and 20 percent, thus increasing taxes by $9 million this fiscal year and by $165 million next year.

• Creating a 5.5 percent Hospital Provider Tax that would impose a $207 million annual tax increase on Connecticut hospitals.

• Extending a soon-to-expire tax on electric bills for an additional 10 years, which would result in a $1.8 billion tax increase on electricity to pay off $1.3 billion in borrowing.

• Requiring Connecticut-based corporations with out-of-state subsidiaries to pay taxes on its entire net income, instead of paying taxes only on what it makes from its holdings in this state.

• Taxing the bonuses earned by those who work for companies that received TARP funding from the federal government -� but have paid the federal money back with interest. We would be the only state in the nation to do this.

I spoke against and voted against these bills in committee – and will do again if they make it to the Senate floor. However, the mere fact that a powerful committee endorsed them will have a chilling effect on business owners considering expanding,

Case in point: A woman-owned bread company that started in a Wilton kitchen moved to a small commercial space and is now looking for larger space and plans to employ up to 35 people. They may consider creating those jobs outside of Connecticut because of our unfriendly business climate. The legislature should be removing burdens from these employers, not adding to them.

Now for some good news. A competitively bid contract was recently awarded to upgrade and refurbish the rest stops along the Merritt Parkway (with guidance from the Merritt Parkway Conservancy) and I-95 over the next several years.� There is no question that it would be impossible for the state to finance debt to make these necessary upgrades during these economic times. This contract is good news for Connecticut taxpayers as the new vendor has agreed to assume the considerable expense of renovating and making improvements to these rest stops � an investment in our state that will create jobs during these difficult economic times without taxing residents further.

Another positive development – With less than 2 months left in the fiscal year, an agreement was reached to reduce the current deficit. However, we still face an $800 million deficit beginning July 1, and a nearly $4 billion for the following year.

Republican legislators presented several proposals to resolve the state budget issues we are facing:

• $58 million in line item cuts lowering spending to 2009 levels;
• $64 million in early retirement for state workers;
• $10 million in state agency consolidations;
• $6.4 million to shed state office leases;
• $20 million in privatization of state functions;
• $150 million in state worker concessions, including wage freezes, furloughs and health care adjustments;
• $3.8 million in legislative pay cuts and the elimination of franked mail and travel.

The budget also makes significant investments in job creation and retirement security:

• Appropriates $200 million in previously cancelled contributions to state employee pensions;
• Elimination of the Business Entity Tax to save companies $32 million;
• Creation of the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund of $25 million;
• Tax credits of up to $17.5 million will be available to companies that hire off unemployment rolls.

As we conclude this year’s short session legislators must keep working to close this gap without more new taxes that will further erode job creation.

As always, I encourage you to share your thoughts and concerns with me. I can be reached at my legislative office in Hartford at 1-800-842-1421 or via e-mail to Toni.Boucher@cga.ct.gov.

“Another View” � Anna Duleep 4/21/10

It has come to my attention that Mayor Moccia’s feelings may have been hurt by my most recent letter to the editor.��(The Hour, April 5, 2010)��This is my best guess based on comments from third parties.��As Mayor Moccia has chosen not to take advantage of opportunities to air his concerns directly to my face, I could be mistaken.��Although I find it a bit silly to sign this as a private citizen when everybody knows I represent Norwalk on several boards and am a declared candidate for the Connecticut House of Representatives, I want to be clear that I am writing this from the heart as a private citizen and constituent of Mayor Moccia’s.��I have not shared this letter with any representatives of the South Western Regional Planning Agency; nor have I discussed this letter with any members of my campaign staff.

Although my preferred style is to discuss this in person and out of the public eye, I will attempt to honor Mayor Moccia’s chosen method of communication by writing this letter to the editor.��The last time Mayor Moccia had a negative reaction to a letter I wrote, he asked the Deputy Secretary of State to reprimand me in writing, allowed word to get back to me over the course of a three-week period that he was upset with me, and ultimately chose to have a heated argument with me in front of fellow Common Council members and several journalists.��Apparently Mayor Moccia has not learned from that experience that such tactics are an ineffective way to resolve his issues with me.��I find whispers behind my back to be reminiscent of middle school.��I made the transition quite some time ago from middle school student to middle school teacher.��Perhaps I was mistaken in my assumption that a seasoned politician twice my age would have made that same leap.

It is my understanding that Mayor Moccia requested that the Executive Director and Board Chairman of SWRPA write a letter retracting statements I made in my previous letter to the editor.��To date, they have elected not to do so.��I believe it is a policy to avoid choosing sides in interpersonal conflicts involving elected and appointed officials of member municipalities.�Further, it is my understanding that Mayor Moccia is the only person who has requested that the SWRPA Board discuss whether or not my letter constitutes a violation of the ethical guidelines that apply to all our members.

Nothing in my previous letter is factually inaccurate.��I felt it would be disingenuous to write such a letter without acknowledging that I am a candidate for public office as well as a new member of the Executive Committee of the SWRPA Board of Directors.��It was a judgment call made solely by me.��If my fellow board members ever tell me they feel my actions were contradictory to the ethical guidelines we follow, I will be happy to discuss the matter with them and adjust my future actions accordingly.

Mayor Moccia is the one who appointed me to the SWRPA Board of Directors in November 2007, immediately following my unsuccessful experience as a Democratic candidate for the Common Council.��I believe it is within his purview to decide whether or not to somehow rescind this appointment.��Another factor for his consideration will be my performance as a board member.��Immediately following the last election, I decided to devote more attention to family health issues I had not been able to adequately address during my campaign.

Although my reasons for missing more than one meeting of the full SWRPA Board are personal, I recognize that my attendance record is public information and absolutely fair game in my current campaign.��All I ask is that any person who chooses to question my performance by posting online comments under any name other than his or her legal, real-life name please include an explicit statement that he or she is not a member of the SWRPA Board.��A reader unacquainted with other members of the board could reasonably infer from comments posted by “anonymous” or “Duleep, not” that the comments were from an insider.��I would hate to have such negative comments reflect poorly on a group of people who have earned my utmost respect, admiration, and friendship over the past two years.��Although I am happy to discuss my record with constituents, please be advised that my priority is to answer questions raised by people who are willing to sign their own names to their comments.

It is my preference to continue to serve as a member of the SWRPA Board of Directors.��I feel there is much work ahead as my co-chair and I transition the former Housing Committee to the newly named “Economic Development Committee” and prepare to hand over the reins to two new co-chairs later this year.��If Mayor Moccia chooses to remove me from the position to which he appointed me, all I ask is that he consider replacing me with another young, female, minority Democrat.��I am the only Norwalk representative who fits such demographic criteria and feel the entire board benefits from a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and opinions.��If Mayor Moccia chooses that course of action, I will make the best of the situation.��I will continue to advocate for issues such as regional cooperation and take advantage of the additional free time to devote to my campaign for state representative.��I will simply add the word “former” to my campaign literature.

Although I am a bit surprised that a current mayor who is not even my political opponent would avoid addressing his concerns directly with me, I suppose it is his response to my blunt personality.��Anybody who knows my mother, a/k/a the President of Friends of Ryan Park, will recognize this as an inherited trait.��It is an aspect of my personality that has remained unchanged despite my decision to become a politician.��I believe some members of Mayor Moccia’s party, notably former Presidential candidate John McCain, would appreciate my “straight talk.”��I have earned a reputation as a public servant who speaks her mind regardless of whether her comments offend the sensitive natures of other politicians or even higher-ranking members of her own party.

I cannot imagine behaving any other way, particularly in the aftermath of my dog’s murder (a painful tragedy that was addressed on the front page of�The Hour two years ago).��Having my beloved lapdog take two bullets for me was a sobering experience and a major impetus for reassessing my priorities.��Although Scrappy’s murderer has thus far evaded criminal charges, I now carry with me at all times a court order barring a certain individual from my home.��The outpouring of support from people all over Norwalk influenced my decision to rededicate myself to public service.��I feel uncomfortable writing about such a personal, painful episode in my life.��Nevertheless, writing about the impact of Scrappy’s murder is the most efficient way of explaining why the consideration of whether or not my actions will hurt the feelings of a fellow politician is not even near the top of my list of priorities.

In the course of my career as a teacher, I have had to have difficult conversations with urban teenagers, suburban soccer moms, and clients of my small business, Duleep Educational Coaching.��Speaking bluntly may not make me popular at times, but ignoring areas needing improvement would be a disservice to my students.��Similarly, although it is too bad my statements have negatively affected Mayor Moccia, and this letter is my best attempt to compromise our contrasting managerial styles, I am unwilling to censor myself because a fellow politician has proven more sensitive than I initially thought.

By Rep. Jim Himes

Last week at the White House, I sat next to John Lewis, hero of the civil rights movement, and watched the President sign health care reform into law. For Congressman Lewis it was the fulfillment of the promise of a just society for which he was nearly beaten to death in Selma, Alabama in 1965. The President’s signature ushered us into the company of every other industrialized nation on the planet in offering each of our citizens a basic level of healthcare.

It’s odd that this was so controversial. It is a core American value that we defend and protect our own. When terrorists fly planes into our buildings and murder thousands of our innocents, we stop at nothing to find and destroy them. If fire threatens your life or property, we stop at nothing to protect you. If you are assaulted, we never hesitate to send people and equipment to save you.

Previously, if you got breast cancer, kidney disease, or diabetes, you might have gotten help. Maybe—if you were employed and had insurance; were 65 or older and had Medicare; or didn’t have any pre-existing conditions. If not, you, like tens of thousands of other Americans each year, may have died from inadequate access to health care.

I believe that America looks after its own. On values, I believe that America leads, not follows. But not everyone does. Congressman Lewis was taunted with racial epithets as he walked, still bearing the scars of his Selma beating, to the Capitol last week. And now, as we turn the page on a year of consideration and debate, the American people will finally begin to see their health care system change for the better.

Starting right now, our families, small businesses, seniors, and young people will begin to feel the benefits of health care reform. Immediate benefits include a 35% tax credit to small businesses that provide coverage to their employees and a $250 rebate on prescription drugs for seniors paying thousands of dollars for their prescriptions in the “donut hole.”

Other reforms kick in soon. In June, Americans formerly shut out by pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable coverage provided through a high-risk pool. In September, young people up to the age of 26 will be able to join their parents’ health insurance, and health insurance companies will be banned from dropping someone’s coverage when that person gets sick. There will also be no more lifetime or annual caps on expenditures for the exceedingly ill.

Despite the misinformation peddled by opponents of health care reform, this legislation will not harm Medicare. While the opposition outrageously tried to scare our seniors into believing that their benefits would be cut and that they would face “death panels,” the reality is that seniors will now benefit from a more secure Medicare and from the comfort that the donut hole will be completely closed over time. Remember, the AARP, our nation’s lead advocate for our senior citizens, enthusiastically endorsed the reform.

In terms of reducing the out-of-control increases in health care costs, nearly every proven idea for controlling costs is contained in this bill. These include new requirements for insurers to disclose and justify premium increases; the creation of insurance exchanges to promote competition that will result in more competitive rates for coverage; national pilot programs to increase payments for doctors and hospitals who deliver high-quality care at a lower cost; and new incentives for wellness and preventive care. Over time, some of these provisions will lead to much more efficient care.

Finally, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this reform is the largest deficit reduction measure in decades. Over the course of the next 10 years, it will reduce the federal deficit by�$138 billion. In the ensuing decade, that savings grows to over $1 trillion. The CBO is appropriately required to be conservative, and to substantially discount uncertain savings. Because of this policy, nearly $600 billion in savings over the next decade, as estimated by leading Harvard economist David Cutler in the Wall Street Journal, doesn’t show up in CBO’s budget scores. We know—and economists agree—that these cost savings exist.

Like all major change, health reform is not without risk. Some cost savings ideas will fail. The system will be subject to political pressure just as it is today. But the risks associated with maintaining the status quo far outweigh the risks of reform. Health care costs currently consume one in every six dollars we spend. We spend twice per person what the average industrialized country spends with far worse results, the very definition of inefficiency.

Perhaps most importantly, after a century of failed attempts by Presidents going back to Teddy Roosevelt, through Eisenhower, Nixon, and Clinton, we are finally able to offer all Americans access to life-saving medical care. Now, we can say without reservation that we Americans look after our own.

By Bruce Kimmel

With the Norwalk Board of Education on the verge of hiring a Superintendent, I believe it’s worthwhile to examine some mistakes of the past in order to avoid making them again. A previous column discussed how the Board, between 2005 and 2009, did not address a variety of diversity issues. This column focuses on the inability of long-term BOE members to develop a balanced working relationship with the Superintendent.

I joined the BOE in August 2005, after serving almost eight years on the Common Council, and served until February 2009. During that time, I witnessed a strange swing of the engagement pendulum in a relatively short period: from inexplicable subservience mixed with civility toward the Superintendent to debilitating distrust mixed with bursts of incivility toward that same Superintendent. The abrupt turning point came soon after publication of the Cambridge Report in early February 2008.

The Cambridge Report was mandated by the State because of consistently low scores by Norwalk public school students on standardized tests. It was highly critical of the Superintendent and his team of administrators. It was also critical of the BOE for its passivity and inability to communicate consistently with the public. The report was completed in September 2007, and published the following February after being reviewed by the State. When the report was disseminated across the city, the former Superintendent sent out a cover letter that downplayed its importance.

In the letter, he noted that, “As a district�it is not productive for us to spend our time and energy in this kind of a discussion.” And in the initial discussion of the report with the BOE, he stressed that it was based on subjective “perceptions,” clearly hoping we would not take its findings seriously. Fortunately, the report was widely distributed and its results were clear: Norwalk was a district in need of major improvements and its leadership had failed on a number of fronts. Senior Board members could no longer rubber stamp whatever the Superintendent wanted.

When I came onto the Board in 2005, it was comprised of eight Democrats and one Unaffiliated who had been elected on the Democratic ticket. For the next two years, I repeatedly found myself a minority of one on a variety of issues that I deemed either problematic or in need of further discussion. I didn’t mind losing votes, I was used to that from my days on the Common Council. It was the absence of any meaningful discussion that perplexed me. Two of the senior members of the Board (both of whom stepped down a few years ago) actually told me on several occasions that because the Board had full confidence in the Superintendent, there was very little for Board members to do. This, of course, was a blueprint for disaster.

(It should be noted that in the 2007 municipal election, two Republicans were elected to the formerly all-Democratic Board. This opened up discussion somewhat, but it wasn’t until after publication of the Cambridge Report that the long-term Board members made their move from subservience to complete distrust.)

Part of the Cambridge Report was based on a lengthy discussion with a delegation of Board members. I was not included. A short time after that discussion, the Board Chairwoman told me the Board thought it would be a good idea if I spoke with the Cambridge people. I had no idea why the Board would want me to meet with the Cambridge folks, but I agreed.

I met for over two hours with the head of their team and was surprised to learn the meeting had been arranged because Cambridge told the Board they wanted to interview me. I left that meeting feeling vindicated; much of what I � and many others in the Norwalk community � had been saying about the BOE and the district was clearly going to find its way into the final report. Perhaps things would begin to change.

They did, and with a vengeance. After a few months, those Board members who for years had supported whatever the Superintendent wanted � always rationalized with absurd assertions that open discussion and honest give-and-take were equivalent to micromanagement and should thus be avoided � were now privately saying we couldn’t trust anything he proposed. They said we had to micromanage the system, examine every detail of every proposal put forth by the Superintendent, which naturally led to never-ending discussions of all types of issues, large and small.

Unfortunately, this new-found distrust led to repeated expressions of hostility by several Board members toward the Superintendent, and even toward administrators who were deemed close to him. The atmosphere had indeed been poisoned, but not only by Board members. The Superintendent, clearly frustrated by his inability to get much of anything done, became increasingly condescending toward Board members.

Meanwhile, members of the public and certain school administrators were forced to sit in uncomfortable disbelief at both the length and tone of some of the discussions at Board meetings. On a number of occasions, I spoke with parents who used words such as “sad” and “pathetic” to characterize the verbal exchanges that had transpired between the Board and the Superintendent.

Last June, the Superintendent resigned. And in November, the three incumbents who were up for re-election were defeated.