Comments on: November 17th Norwalk Board Of Ed Video

By: AVE indunda

AVE indunda — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:43:07 +0000

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

By: NorwalkSpectator

NorwalkSpectator — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:57:25 +0000

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.

By: NorwalkSpectator

NorwalkSpectator — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:40:22 +0000

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.

By: Rivas is a fool

Rivas is a fool — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:58:14 +0000

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.

By: Tired

Tired — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:56:47 +0000

There are WAY too many unnecessary Assistant Principals ripping off the Norwalk taxpayer as it is.

By: NorwalkSpectator

NorwalkSpectator — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:47:52 +0000

My apologies, Tired, I wrote “assistant administrators” when what I really meant was “Assistant Principals”.

By: Tired

Tired — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:10:18 +0000

WE do NOT need any more assitant administrators– at 100K per iteration– which costs ALL the taxpayers–why is this so difficult to comprehend?

By: Dumbfounded

Dumbfounded — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:52:19 +0000

No wonder law school enrollments are at a record high and math and science scores are in the toilet.

By: jillcooks

jillcooks — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:35:30 +0000

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.

By: Wondering

Wondering — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:27:04 +0000

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.