Minutes of the Charter Revision Commission Meeting held on Tuesday December 19, 2006 in the Old Court Room at Edmond Town Hall, 45 Main Street, Newtown, CT.
PRESENT: Al Cramer, Guy Howard, Joan Plouffe, LeReine Frampton, Joseph Hemingway, Carolyn Signorelli, Board of Education Members: Andrew Buzzi, Tom Gissen, David Nanavaty, Paul Mangiafico, and Elaine McClure, Superintendent of Schools-Evan Pitkoff, one member of the press.
Chairman Al Cramer called the meeting to order at 7:09 PM.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: Upon motion of Mr. Hemingway, the minutes of the regular meeting on 12/12/06 were unanimously accepted as presented.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
1. Superintendent of Schools Evan Pitkoff distributed research regarding recommended practices for Boards of Education (Attachment A). Mr. Pitkoff disagreed with the Commission’s decision to change the Board of Education term to 2 years. Mr. Pitkoff feels that there is a steep learning curve for Board members and that it takes at least 1 year for the member to become acclimated to the job. He noted that turnover on the Board is costly to the Town in the form of time, effort, money, and training and that continuity in school board policy is essential for excellence in the school system. Mr. Pitkoff also expressed the need for
elections to be staggered to eliminate the possibility of the entire Board turning over in a single year. Mr. Pitkoff also feels that the Board should be elected at large as their job is to set policy for all learners in Town, not just a geographical area. Electing Board members by district could also limit the number of people who want to run if a district is already full with candidates.
2. Board of Education member Andrew Buzzi-38 Obtuse Rd expressed concern over the Commissions decision to change the Board of Education term to 2 years. Mr. Buzzi explained that the Board negotiates administrative, teacher, and bus contracts that are daunting in size and scope. He feels that having previous experience with these contacts is very helpful and that with 2 year terms, the Board would have less members who have this experience. He believes that people who run for the Board are generally committed to serve at least their first term, and fears that with a 2 year term, there will be a higher turnover rate. Mr. Buzzi stated that he
has continually advocated for the Board of Finance to remain as part of the Town government as a unit of the Legislative Council. He noted that a joint meeting last Wednesday between the two groups evidenced the synergy that would benefit the Town from having these groups meeting together.
3. Board of Education member Tom Gissen-35 Horseshoe Ridge Rd. stated that he does not agree with the Commission’s decision to elect Board members by district noting that sometimes you can’t find candidates to run in certain districts and that the voters should be able to vote for the best candidate. He feels that the Board is not currently contentious but if elections were run by districts, it could lead to situations where Board members may be advocating for their district and set up school vs. school conflicts. Mr. Gissen also disagrees with the Commission’s decision on 2-year terms agreeing with the learning curve and continuity
issues that other members discussed. He cited the high school project as an example of projects that take much longer than 2 years to complete and also believes that fewer candidates would run if they had to be re-elected every 2 years. Mr. Gissen also disagrees with the Commissions decision to increase the size of the Board to 9 members. He feels that a larger group does not foster the type of communication necessary for the Board to operate efficiently. He added that fewer people and fewer steps in the process increase accountability. Mr. Gissen concluded by stating that the Town currently has an excellent school system, a Board of Education that is not politicized, and that schools are not divided, and that if there doesn’t seem to be a problem with the way the Board is running, the Commission should not make changes to fix a problem that he doesn’t feel exists.
4. Board of Education member David Nanavaty-28 Currituck Rd. advised the Commission that the Board of Education is a quasi-State agency that is responsible to the State Board of Education. Mr. Nanavaty distributed state statutes describing limits on what towns can do with Boards of Education (Attachment B) and urged the Commission to take these into account with any changes that may be made. Mr. Nanavaty feels that he is much more effective as a Board member in his second term than he was during his first or even second year and feels that the learning curve is too steep to have 2 year terms. He also believes that increasing the Board to 9
members would create a political situation because one party would have a majority.
5. Board of Education member Paul Mangiafico-15 Kent Rd. urged the Commission to reconsider the recommended changes as not one member of the Board of Education including himself has agreed with any of the recommendations. He stated that he has not seen political motivations on Board decisions and feels that electing by district may politicize the Board. He feels that the current structure with 6 members working to build consensus is effective and that there are adequate viewpoints and arguments with the current size. He believes that increasing the size of the Board will decrease its efficiency.
6. Board of Education Chairman Elaine McClure-32 Ashford Lane does not agree with the Commission’s recommendation to elect Board members by district. She feels that we currently have 4 elementary schools that all believe that they are excellent and that electing by district may lead to rivalry and contention between the schools. She added that if the changes recommended for the Board of Education were because of ballot confusion, the Commission should explore avenues that are open to make the entire ballot clearer for voters. She urged the Commission to speak with Town Clerk, Cindy Simon regarding what can be done to improve the voting
process.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Mr. Cramer reported two letters of correspondence-one from Commissioners Howard and Plouffe (Attachment C), and one from Board of Education Chairman Elaine McClure (Attachment D), which were made records of the minutes in lieu of reading them.
2. Ms. Signorelli made a motion to reconsider the vote on 12/12/06 to raise the number of Board of Education members to 9, elect members by district, and change to 2-year terms. Motion seconded and unanimously carried.
· Ms. Plouffe read a prepared statement (Attachment E) expressing her opinions on the Board of Education recommendations.
· Mr. Howard does not see what problems are being solved by changing to 2-year terms, voting by districts, or increasing members. He feels that the Board will choose how they operate and if members are increased and sub-committees are not utilized (as envisioned by the Commission), the increased number may actually hurt the Board. He added that there is a steeper learning curve for the Board of Education than there is for the Board of Finance or Legislative Council, and that he does not believe that all offices have to have the same terms.
· Mr. Hemingway explained that the proposal for 9 members was in an effort to get more people involved. The proposal to elect by district was for a voting tool and he noted that all three districts overlap in town and that each district has 2 elementary schools in it. In response to concerns raised by Board members, he feels that if the entire Board turned over in a single election, it would probably be for a valid reason. He also feels that having 9 members would help the Board with the amount of work that they have and that they could benefit from subcommittees.
· Ms. Frampton feels that Board of Education members would be more accessible to the public if elected by district. She urged the Commission and Board of Education to look at what structure may fit best with the growth of the Town and that decisions should not be made based on the present personalities on the Board.
· Ms. Signorelli disagrees with importance of continuity as a reason for having longer terms for the Board of Education. She feels that if a member is doing a good job, they will be re-elected and continuity would be maintained. She added that Commissioners were concerned with accountability in the First Selectman’s office as a reason for 2-year terms and questioned why it should be different for the Board of Education. She also questioned the Board members concerns regarding a steep learning curve as a reason for a 4-year term noting that the First Selectman has what is probably the steepest curve and a 2-year term. She concluded stating
that Legislative Council and Board of Selectmen issues are just as important to the citizens of Newtown as Board of Education issues.
· Mr. Cramer referenced the October 17th Charter Revision Commission minutes regarding adding members to the Board of Education noting that it was generally agreed that at least one member should be added to eliminate the possibility of a tie for voting. He added that Commission members had discussed all of these issues before and that the issues had been on the agenda in both November and December meetings. Mr. Cramer read a statement that gave an example of how votes can be negated under the current Charter structure (Attachment F). He indicated that he is working on ways to eliminate this possibility and while Mr. Hemingway’s motion
from 12/12/06 solved this problem, he understands the Board of Education members concerns. Mr. Cramer motioned to table the discussion regarding the motion from 12/12/06. The issue will be addressed as item #1 on the 1/9/07 agenda. Motion seconded and unanimously carried.
NEXT MEETING: The next meeting will be held on Tuesday January 9, 2006 in the Old Courtroom at Edmond Town Hall.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
1. Board of Education member Lisa Schwartz-7 Merlins Lane thanked the Commission for reconsidering the 12/12/06 motion due to the long-term implications that the changes may have.
2. Mr. Pitkoff feels that continuity is important on the Board and that many people leave after their initial term. He gave an example of his previous school district where 11/2 years after he was hired only 2 of the 6 members who hired him were still on the Board. He feels this would be worse with 2-year terms. He added that the Board functions as a whole committee to set policy and that subcommittees promote fractionalization and leads members to working on administrative functions rather than policy matters.
3. Mr. Buzzi stressed the importance of continuity and believes that terms need to be 4 years because most contracts that the Board negotiates are 3-year contracts. He feels that the Board can get deeper into the issues with only 6 members and that voting by district won’t change the Board accessibility to the public as he currently receives calls from all over Town regarding current issues.
4. Mr. Mangiafico agreed with Mr. Buzzi’s statement regarding voting by district. He feels that more members would not benefit the Board and while they may not operate in subcommittees, they currently do disperse efforts on the Board. He does not see any relation between perceived power and term of office.
5. Mr. Gissen feels that any perceived tension between the Board of Finance and the Board of Education does not stem from the differing terms of office, and feels that even in private industry, there is always tension between the finance body. He feels that the First Selectman, Legislative Council, and Board of Finance should all be 4 year terms.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Cramer moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded and unanimously carried. Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 PM.
Patrick M. Kelley, Clerk
| 
