Unbridled Arrogance: The Woodstock BOE Chair and Her Minions
Editor’s note: The 17 minute video below is a must see for all Woodstock residents.
Last night’s special meeting held by the WBOE is the most revealing proof of the arrogance of the BOE Chair and her minions to date in my opinion. As you will see, expenditure of public funds to defend her position is of no concern to her or those who voted in favor of the motions brought forth.
Furthermore, the statements by Secretary of the WBOE Carol Andreczik are absolutely stunning:
“…public funds were also expended by the Town, seeking legal counsel on the petition that was brought…not only about the Town Meeting, about the wording and about the referendum, so the Board of Education is not the only part of town who has expended funds on this, public funds on legal for this…so, I think we are well within our bounds…"
She goes on to say that she has read the SEEC rules with regard to expending public funds to influence to the outcome of the referendum. See them -HERE- (Specifically page 32 and beyond). These rules clearly state that spending of public funds to influence the outcome of the referendum is prohibited. Moreover, when presented with a petition, the BOS has no discretion but to send it to the Town Attorney- they have no choice in the matter- these people do.
Mr. Rosendahl and Mr. Musumeci raised a number of points and put forth two motions that were voted down. All of the motions that were put forward both for and against the issues were voted in this way by the participants:
Lindsay Paul, Carol Andreczik, Frank Corden (by Phone), Kevin Ford, Kirsten Rigney
vs.
Steven Rosendahl and Brian Musumeci- except of course, the motion to adjourn, which was unanimous.
Plenty of Half Truths Here
The PR piece that was voted on for release by the Board of Education appears below with commentary as to the validity of the statements contained therein:
May 14, 2009
Dear Woodstock Community,
A recently circulated petition, signed by 29 citizens, supports a new ordinance which would change the existing structure and composition of the Woodstock Board of Education. This proposed ordinance will be brought to a vote at a Special Town Meeting scheduled for May 26. A referendum may instead be scheduled, which will allow all town citizens to participate in this important vote. We urge you to vote in whichever venue it occurs.
The petition contained 38 signatures not 29. The Referendum is set for June 9th from Noon to 8pm at the Town Hall.
The proposed ordinance requires:
a. All current WBOE members’ terms to terminate on Nov. 3, 2009
Terms would terminate on November 2.
b. A full new WBOE to be elected on that date
Seven members would be elected on November 3.
c. The number of WBOE members to be reduced from 9 to 7
d. The term of office to be reduced from 6 years to 4
e. Initially, 4 members will have terms of 2 years and 3 members will have terms of 4 years. Each subsequent town election will elect members for a 4 yr. term. Thus 4 members will be elected in one cycle, and 3 in the next.
Passage of this ordinance would have far-reaching ramifications for the governance of Woodstock schools and for the town’s citizens. Please consider carefully the following:
1. Reducing the number of board members, from 9 to 7, poses two significant risks which may impact the quality and effectiveness of school governance and operations. (A) It will be significantly more burdensome to staff the board’s committees and get their work done. The board has 5 regularly- meeting committees, 5 additional standing committees, and 8 outside organizations with WBOE- appointed representation. Today we are challenged to address the priority work of these committees and organizations. A decreased number of members will impair the board’s ability to fulfill its obligations to all stakeholders in the community in a timely, effective and consistent manner. (B ) It will reduce the diversity and the amount of experience and expertise that the board draws on for effective board and school operations including labor management, contract negotiations, financial management, setting policy and procedures, curriculum development and educational programming, and facilities oversight.
Citizens who have interest in serving on said subcommittees have been repeatedly rebuffed in those efforts. Moreover, the design and assignment of those subcommittees in the past have brought such initiatives as the 9th Grade proposal.
2. Unseating all current board members, with the possibility that a whole new board could be elected, would be highly disruptive to school governance and to the quality and stability of school programs valued by students and parents. This board has endorsed goals which have guided decisions and contributed to consistency in programs, curriculum and fiscal priorities. The expertise gained from participating in several budget cycles, program and curriculum development, and union negotiations will be lost with a wholesale loss of board experience and an abrupt change in board composition. Right now, the board represents cumulative experience of 32.5 years. This ordinance could result in a board with 0 years experience in November. Periodic loss of consistency and expertise will result from regular changes in the board’s majority in future years’ elections.
The statement that this board, under its current leadership has brought us consistency in ‘fiscal priorities’ is absolutely comical. As to the ‘expertise gained from participating in several budget cycles’ this is comical as well as evidenced by the toxic relationships with the BOF and the citizenry- or anyone who asks a question for that matter.
3. The current board structure rotates terms over three election periods. This reflects the desires of the community spanning three separate political timeframes and facilitates a constructive balance of experience, “institutional memory,” and fresh new ideas and energy on the board.
The initiative would provide for a more frequent rotation of terms to felicitate prevention of the very rogue nature that the current board is exhibiting.
4. Passage of this ordinance disenfranchises all voters who elected board of education members in the past two elections. Properly elected board members will all be unseated.
Passage of the ordinance would provide current members the opportunity to extend their terms if successful in their campaigns. The ones with the most to lose are in fact Mr. Rosendahl and Mr. Musumeci who support the initiative.
WPS students are achieving above average scores on State CMTs and on the EXPLORE placement tests going into Woodstock Academy. WPS is meeting escalating NCLB standards for regular education students each year. Students distinguish themselves at academic and extra-curricular venues including the state science fair, public speaking contests, fire poster competitions, sports achievement, music and art competitions, and others. This is accomplished while remaining 162nd out of 169 CT towns in per pupil spending, according to State Department of Education data for 2007-08. Dedicated and skillful teachers, resourceful and effective administrators, and engaged and supportive parents are key to our students’ achievement. A board structure which retains consistency in its governance, diversity in its expertise, and depth in its experience best ensures an environment supportive of all of our efforts towards student success.
I find it particularly offensive that this statement leaves out the fact that the WPS is failing with regard to NCLB for SPED students evidenced by the district being in “Safe Harbor” and the designation of “needing improvement” in this area which remains unaddressed for some time now.
The continued rhetoric regarding spending levels reflecting a state ranking of 162 out of 169 for 2007-08 is incorrect and has been debunked repeatedly throughout this site.
As to the ‘resourceful and effective’ administrators, I do not see how this can be substantiated considering the fact that the administration utilizes Shipman & Goodwin nearly every day and for every purpose- see Academics and Athletics or Attorneys?
Sincerely,
The Woodstock Board of Education.
Video -HERE- 17 minutes (Requires Media Player)
This communication is paid for by Woodstock for Progressive Education. Craig R. Powers 100 Brickyard Road Woodstock, CT, Agent
I think the video tells the whole story . This is a perfect example of "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".
The best we can hope for is the referendum makes it possible for us "The taxpayers"to discharge the dictators. Find a board of non partisan non prejudice members who are not on a power trip!
Restore the education system back to the children for whom it was intended.
Well said Maggie. Another issue has been eating at me a little and that is that the BOE, as they have in the past, post official press releases when a preceeding article refers to the petitioners as 'inbreeding rabble'. Classy bunch.
Admin,
I just watched the video but I understood the chairwoman to say that public funds were spent on legal advice regarding the petition (I'm taking that to mean the legitimacy of it; ie. is it legal). I thought I understood her to say that no public funds can be spent on the public statement from the BOE or distribution of it. That's why she opted to put it out as a press release.
I guess I'll have to watch it again to be sure of my understanding of it all.
Thanks for providing the video. I found it helpful.
No problem and you're welcome. I have no comment on the rest of it at this time.
I just want to ask a question that borders on a personal attack, but I believe is a reasonable question. Mr. Powers took legal action against the BOE in an attempt to have the BOE include funding in its budget to pay for his child to attend The Rectory School. If his lawsuit were successful, there would be a precedent set which would mean that all students in Woodstock with similar diagnoses would be sent to private schools, and that those costs would be included in the BOE budget. Such a situation would effectively cripple the public education system in Woodstock.
Perhaps Mr. Powers is able to separate his personal feelings toward the BOE and his political actions; considering the circumstances, it is at least a question worth asking. Is he a petitioner to unseat all BOE members because he really believes it is in the best interest of the Town, or because he is simply playing games in order to harass duly elected officials who disagree with him?
Democracy allows for petitions. Democracy allows for questioning of elected officials. Democracy also allows people to elect officials. If elected officials break laws or make egregious mistakes should and can be removed from office.
I hope that duly elected officials can't be removed from office just because overly-aggressive citizens aren't willing to wait until the next election to unseat those officials who do not agree with a small, or large group of voters.
I've seen Mr. Powers chuckle about the distress he was causing at a BOE meeting. It just makes me wonder how seriously he takes his actions.
I think your question is reasonable as well; however, your statements are quite incorrect, so I will elaborate. We did not take legal action “in an attempt to have the BOE include funding in its budget to pay for his child to attend The Rectory School.” This is an untrue statement- I would invite you to review the case. You go on to say “If his lawsuit were successful, there would be a precedent set which would mean that all students in Woodstock with similar diagnoses would be sent to private schools, and that those costs would be included in the BOE budget. Such a situation would effectively cripple the public education system in Woodstock.” These are also untrue statements- the precedents you refer to were actually set by the Supreme Court, and the department in question was given every opportunity (for months) to answer our questions and comply with the law. Secondly, our child’s diagnosis has nothing to do with any other; therefore, the rest of your statement is specious.
The evidence and presentations do not lie and speak for themselves on the issues surrounding the BOE, I also don’t consider this political- it’s more about right and wrong for me and what is best for the children and the Town; based on the evidence I think it’s hard to argue, but the people will decide on June 9th.
Anyone who knows me knows the answer to your next question and will answer without reservation, I invite you to speak with any of them. If you’d like names, send an email.
With regard to your assertion of me causing “distress at a BOE meeting”, I would invite you to provide proof of this statement. Every BOE meeting I have attended is on video, one other was shot by someone else and I wasn't there. Perhaps you can point out what you are speaking of.
If I was chuckling at a BOE meeting I can guarantee it was in response to something that was said that struck me as funny, ironic or propagandistic by the Board or someone said something funny near me, I believe I am entitled to my perceptions. Moreover, whenever I have questioned our officials, I have been nothing but courteous- the tapes bear that out. If you wonder about my seriousness regarding the issues, I invite you to call me to discuss it at your convenience. Thank you for your input and please vote.
Thank you for your response and your willingness to discuss this cordially. Sites like this one and the cafe, in my opinion, would benefit from everyone refraining from personal attacks. While I may disagree with your politics, I do appreciate the tone of your answer. I would encourage people who post any opinion to remember that we may be talking to a neighbor when we post our thoughts.
So, with pleasantries aside, let me address the elephant in the room...It appears that you are unhappy with the current BOE (and perhaps past BOE's as well). The petition that you are supporting would possibly remove all current BOE members. To me, this sounds like there is a handful of people who want to erase an election because they disagree with duly elected officials. In a Democracy, people get elected and serve their terms. The election represents the will of the voters. Any attempt to invalidate elections should be based on the legal structure that is in place to remove officials. In other words, if you can prove that there are legal reasons to remove elected officials, follow that path. It appears that you are making an end run at taking out a BOE that you don't agree with under the pretense of simply restructuring the BOE.
As to my specious argument...could you be more specific? It is my understanding that you were at one point advocating for your child to be placed at Rectory and that your pursued legal action as a result. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part.
JK,
No problem. As to the elephant in the room, I suppose you could tie this to anyone that signed the petition and most are in the phone book, but it appears that you would like to question just me. I think I have gone to great lengths to dispel that there is anything personal about this, in fact, even ‘Con’ has said that one has nothing to do with the other on the Café with regard to my involvement in this, and I agree with him. I am content to see our case through the system as I said I would from the beginning. As to 'disagreeing with my politics', I really don't know what you mean by this- as I said, I don't consider this political.
While I may have written the proposed ordinance and dropped it off, I do not stand alone and I certainly cannot speak for everyone who has signed, or has offered to sign the second petition that is now not needed; in that regard the petition stands on its own. It is my perception that many feel the case has been made, now it will be up to the voters. I don’t believe that there is an “I” in the signatures of 38 residents if you catch my meaning.
As to your statement that I referred to as specious, every child is different and the procedures are governed by federal law, which appears to be your misunderstanding.
The basis of our case is that we were advocating for the department in question to do their jobs and they flat-out refused repeatedly, and then manipulated the events to prepare for war rather than answer the questions. As it turns out, every letter I wrote to the district (6 or more) was replied to with letters written by the attorneys and signed by the administration which I learned by reviewing the legal bills, and they contained no substantive response- not exactly good faith in my opinion. Our family attorney’s letter repeating our questions was never responded to at all. His advice was to find a specialist- that is when the odyssey began in earnest.
As his time was now going by and the district was indifferent, we placed our child where the job was going to get done and it did. The case is complicated as you might imagine and frankly I don’t have the patience to go into that detail here. It is public record, or, as I have offered before, you are welcome here to review it for yourself; however, I will say this- with ten pieces of paper that I could present to you, it is my opinion that you would have a very different view of how our school system operates. Any disposition in our case has nothing to do with setting any precedent in Woodstock going forward; this appears to be your other misunderstanding.
Dear Truth,
Sending out this opinion as information clearly violates Connecticut law concerning boards of education and political involvement. It is a sad day when a majority of members of a town board seemingly feel threatened to such an extent so that they ignore and break the rules. Boards are to be exemplums of following the law if not to the letter then in spirit.
It is clear the move to reconstitute the Board is to move out the members who have helped make the BOE so dysfunctional over the last five years especially in its failures with the Academy and SPED. Whether this strategy will succeed seems a guess especially because egos and status looks to be involved, and this could generate a core of opposition in a rather apathetic public. And in contemporary mass cultural life, it is a truism on boards that certain members feel that they will never be in a position with more influence and status in their lives (although often not recognized for one's service by the public and hardly compensated at all).
Dear Mr. Powers,
An excellent, measured reply. We have never met, to my knowledge, but your response and continued work on Woodstock Truth, I find admirable.
I do not think I will be back in Woodstock to vote, but I will certainly contact everyone I know to vote to reconstitute.
Keep up the good work and calm persistence.
Thanks Jay. FYI, absentee ballots will be available from the Town Clerk.
Dear Craig,
Will they send them to France or fax them? Or can I get someone to send them to me? I have voted absentee, but then I voted before the election with the absentee ballot at the Town Hall. Do you know how this works?
Hi Jay, I believe it will need to be mailed to you. Contact Judy Walberg by email at townclerk@woodstockct.gov
JK ,
If a picture speaks a thousand words the video speaks volumes. Notice the seating arrangement and the fearful look on the Lindsay Paul followers.Notice how Mr. Steven Rosendahl and Brian Musumeci have been alienated by the others. Some didn't say anything!
This is an example of fear to oppose the alpha female with a vendetta.
Her last meeting she felt justified to say "I didn't ask the union teachers to pass on the raises because senior citizens didn't refuse theirs". This is yet another example of the mentality of this women .
You strike out at Mr. Powers because he defended his child and other children, based on hearsay? Did you attend the hearing? You are not defending the children of Woodstock who must go without so the union teachers get raises? The BOE goes through the taxpayers money like water, why? Have you seen what they spend on waste?
JK, you need to pay attention to detail not just hearsay of those who have their hands out on the receiving side of the payment line.
The Petitioners have forced this Town to incur these Legal costs – it’s disingenuous bordering on hypocrisy for them to complain about those costs when they are the direct result of their actions and could have been 100% prevented by them.
Anyone taking ANY action that will result in more legal expenses should first ask THEMSELVES: “Academics and Athletics or Attorneys?” (See comments and questions under that Article). In the future, I hope they will please ‘stop, look and listen’, treat such expensive action only as a LAST RESORT and better explore all less-costly alternatives to the action contemplated. Neither the Town nor the BOE is 100% to blame for all costs; those who ‘started it’ must share responsibility.
When this Petition was submitted, the Town and the BOE had a firm obligation (under the ‘Duty of Care’) to seek legal advice and perform legal research into this unprecedented action. Did the Petitioners consider these costs before ‘starting it’? It is hypocritical to use these expenditures as ammo for the blame game by the very parties who caused the Town to incur the expenses in the first place. ‘But for’ this Petition, the Town would not have to expend this money on more legal fees (money for OUR CHILDREN! as everyone loves to point out when blaming others). This Town is not equipped to research unprecedented and unique actions like this.
I am not passing judgment on your statements as a whole as they speak for themselves, but there is one thing I need to point out- this action is not unprecedented in Woodstock and in fact was utilized in 1971 to increase the size of the board- the legal issues are very straight forward with regard to the statutes. I invite you to read them. The link is in a previous article.
Admin.
Just curious. Ever thought about bringing this to broader attention? Certainly what is transpiring in Woodstock is unprecedented to a degree that may have statewide or even national interest. Further, it illuminates what I believe to be a growing undercurrent of activism against the entrenched politics of public education.
I have actually had conversations with Dr. Fusco regarding this subject. He has just returned from Washington where he was presenting. I have also recently been invited to speak to the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations in early June.