MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF FINANCE
MAY 10, 2005
A PUBLIC HEARING was held by the Board of Finance on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 in the Council Chambers, on the proposed budget for the Torrington Public Schools for the fiscal year July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006.
Those in attendance included Mayor Owen J. Quinn, Jr., members of the Board of Finance Daniel Farley, James Zeller, Joseph Nader, and Bruce Cornish. Also present was Board of Education Chairman Paul Cavegnaro, Board of Education members Dawn Lambert, Kenneth Edwards, Ronald Bourque, Bates Lyons, Douglas O’Connell, Elinor Carbone and Robert Lutka, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Susan O’Brien, Director of Business Services James Gaskins, Facilities Director David Bascetta, and City Comptroller Alice Proulx. Absent was Board of Finance member James Nichols, and Board of Education members Edgar Trinidad and David Oliver.
Mayor Quinn called the public hearing to order at 7:15 p.m.
Mayor Quinn said the Board of Finance will soon set the mill rate. He explained that they had wide, sweeping powers to examine and make recommendations to department heads in regard to the city budget, however, their powers were limited concerning the Board of Education budget. Should they choose to increase or decrease the Board of Education budget, they can merely do so by specifying a dollar amount for which it will be increased or decreased. The Board of Education decides where to make cuts, according to their priorities.
Chairman of the Budget Committee Dawn Lambert made a presentation of the Board of Education budget. (For the complete presentation, please refer to the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Board of Finance and the Board of Education held on May 10, 2005, immediately preceding this public hearing.)
Mayor Quinn opened the hearing to public comments.
Mary Bucaccio, 108 Auburn Way, supported the budget. She was optimistic about the new leadership bringing the system back on track. She felt the summer school program for grade two and Kindergarten were both essential. She hoped funds would be made available for programs that meet the needs of above average students, and those in the fields of math and technology. She was glad that funds had been appropriated to purchase new textbooks, noting that several students had been sharing books in the past.
She encouraged the Board of Finance to approve the Board of Education as presented and encouraged the officials to join the Commissioner of Education in her fight against unfunded mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act.
Ms. Bucaccio indicated that her neighbor had asked her to inquire about the allocation of $30,000.00 in technology and whether or not those funds would be used for cell phones.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that cell phones were provided to the school nurses, custodians, and administrators for obvious reasons of safety. The cost of that service is budgeted at $16,500.00.
Wendy Traub, 211 Chamberlain Street, stated that it was important for everyone to tell our legislators that unfunded mandates are creating problems for our budget.
Ms. Traub noted that cell phones had already been brought up as a concern, and that other concerns included the number of administrators, and overtime. Many parents are afraid that programs taken away now will never come back. She stated that parents want their children to move forward in our state, into our colleges, and into the country so they can contribute to society. Personally she would want to see the upcoming renewal of the teacher’s contracts reflect what the students had to give up.
She hoped the Board of Finance would consider any possible increase in order to address some of the items that parents had expressed their concern about.
Matthew Ellis, 40 Prescott Street, 1st year as boy’s volleyball coach at Torrington High School, asked why the Board of Education cut the boy’s volleyball program at the high school for a cost savings of $12,000.00. He noted that they had one allstate player who went to college on a scholarship, and three juniors who had a chance at being allstate and going on to play in college. He believed that volleyball was a big incentive to keep kids from dropping out, and stated that he would be willing to coach for free if need be in order to keep the program intact.
In terms of budget cuts, Mrs. Lambert stated the board and the administration looked at all programs including athletics in the middle school as well as the high school. The volleyball program was actually a Tier 1 recommendation, which means that it was a line item that the administration felt would have the least impact. Her guess was that it had something to do with the number of students participating. Perhaps it was due to the equity and balance in sports between boys and girls.
Veronica LeDuc, Principal of Torrington High School stated, when they were first asked to look at this matter, they put things in priority order. The most notable was the fact that they were out of compliance with Title IX. In order for them to regain compliance, they had to make an adjustment to one of their male sports. Because of their participation in the Naugatuck Valley League, they were obligated to run certain sports that are run in the League, and that’s basically the reason that volleyball was the sport looked at most. The Naugatuck Valley League doesn’t have a boy’s volley ball participation and so we had to go out of the League in order to run that sport. We run a large number of sports in the gold coast where there are volleyball teams. Mr. Porch determined, given that
we have the obligation to the NVL, that we had to get into Title IX compliance and NVL does not require us to run boys’ volleyball. That was the reason that determination was made.
Mr. Nader inquired whether boys’ volleyball could be subsidized privately through corporate sponsorships, donations, etc.
She thought it would depend on board policy and how it would impact their Title IX situation, since they are on very shaky ground.
Mrs. LeDuc explained that they had to be within some certain percentage points of boys and girls participation, not only in number of sports, but in the number of students that participate in female and male sports, not only through the whole year but by season. An example is the football team because a large number of males participate. Participation will be watched closely during the coming year because we’ve been out of compliance for Title IX for several years, and being in compliance will be looked at heavily during the high school accreditation process. At one point, they were looking to expand the female offerings but we haven’t been able to bring those to fruition because of the budget situation.
Mr. Nader inquired whether any consideration was given to possibly eliminating the freshman’s participation of a sport, such as football or baseball as opposed to eliminating a sport entirely.
Mrs. LeDuc indicated that she didn’t have the details about that, but there were rules and regulations concerning seasonal participation as well as equity in participation between males and females. Athletic Director Newell Porch carefully reviewed the numbers, the options, and the cost factors in order to determine what was best for us to put forward in order to become compliant with Title IX, and it was volleyball.
Mr. Nader once again inquired whether private funds could be used. It didn’t seem sensible to eliminate a sport whereby the coach said he was willing to coach for free. In addition, he asked what would become of the investment in new equipment and uniforms that were recently purchased for this sport.
Dr. O’Brien stated that there may be policy and/or legal issues in terms of each group receiving the same thing.
Mr. Nader pointed out that the high school football has its Booster Club, and inquired whether a separate Booster Club could be specifically targeted for a sport?
Dr. O’Brien stated that numerous questions would have to be answered, and that she would check into the matter. She was grateful for the support and for the offer from the coach to coach for free, but she would have to dig more deeply to make certain it would be acceptable under both policy and legal responsibilities in public schools.
Mrs. Lambert pointed out that corporate sponsorships had been debated by the Board of Education approximately six years ago and had been voted down.
Mr. Cavegnaro indicated that it would be appropriate for the Board of Education in the coming year to focus a certain amount of time exploring how the status of sports in the public schools in Torrington affect the budget.
Cathy Weber, 49 Magnolia Court, asked if there was a way the school administrators could continue the sports for a year while they figure out some sort of program that will work for the following year. She asked if anyone had looked into Pay for Play. It was her belief that the district would pay more for insurance if more kids participated, especially if there was an intermingling of experienced kids with those who were not.
Ms. Weber said she was glad to know that cell phones were not for every teacher, and agreed with a previous speaker that the school system was top heavy.
Michael Cilfone, 44 Clove Court, stated that they were cutting a sport that had been successful for many years which impacted hundreds of kids, and he hadn’t heard a good reason why. Eliminating sports was sending the wrong message to our children. He hoped the Board of Finance would look for funds to continue the program.
Mr. Cilfone didn’t believe safety was a reason to subsidize cell phones. It was his bet that cell phones had not been used for safety since its inception and he felt money would be spent for phones that would be sitting in people’s pockets.
Brian Kiernan, 113 Settlers Way, inquired whether the $200,000.00 being appropriated in capital improvement for upgrading the middle school athletic fields could come from alternative resources; i.e., the city budget, corporate sponsors, since it is heavily used by community groups. The middle school uses it for some of its sports programs, specifically soccer, baseball, physical education, and cross country uses the area but not necessarily the fields. Youth sports uses the fields during evenings and weekends.
Mr. Kiernan thought it was highly improbable that an incident would occur at the middle school whereby $55,000.00 worth of security equipment would be used. He asked if this was the best time to make those modifications and upgrade to a tune of a quarter of a million dollars.
David Bascetta, Facilities Director, indicated that they had been wanting to upgrade the security system for almost ten years so they could better monitor any activities, especially in the hallways.
In regard to the $200,000.00 upgrade in irrigation to the middle school fields, Mr. Bascetta informed Mr. Kiernan that was from the 2006-07 budget and not the 2005-06 budget, and it may be revisited next year when the capital plan is reviewed. The amount may be reduced if they see that the fields are not being used and if they decide that it won’t be money well spent.
State Representative Ann Ruwet, 325 Clearview Avenue, said she hoped the Board of Finance would consider that the state was having its own budget battle. However, it was much more amenable since they do have a surplus. Hopefully it will be completed by June 8. She noted that they were attempting to send part of the surplus back to municipalities as well as to focus on teacher retirements which have not been funded for quite a while.
Mrs. Ruwet pledged her support against unfunded mandates in Hartford.
Mr. Cornish thanked everyone for attending the public hearing and appreciated everyone’s comments.
On behalf of the Board of Education, Mr. Cavegnaro also commended everyone for attending the public hearing and for their support and commitment.
Mayor Quinn called the public hearing to a close at 8:15 p.m.
ATTEST: JOLINE LeBLANC
ASST. CITY CLERK
| 
