MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF FINANCE AND THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
MAY 6, 2008
A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the Board of Finance and the Board of Education was held on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 in the Council Chambers.
In the absence of Mayor Ryan J. Bingham, Councilwoman Elinor Carbone presided over the meeting. Those present included members of the Board of Finance Daniel Farley, Laurene Pesce, Mark Bushka, Thomas Scoville, Wendy Traub, and James Zeller, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Susan O’Brien, Assistant Superintendent of Schools Dr. Barbara Campbell, members of the Board of Education Paul Cavagnero CHM., Frank Rubino CHM of the Budget Committee, Andrew Nargi, Michael Broverman, Heidi Laus, Bates Lyons, Director of Business Services Nancy Haynes and the City’s Comptroller Alice Proulx.
Mrs. Carbone called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. to present the Board of Education budget to the Board of Finance.
Chairman Paul Cavagnero thanked the Budget Committee for the very professional and detail work presented within the budget. He noted that there was a big turnover in the Board of Education this year, especially in the very critical area of the Budget Committee, so they relied on the common sense, intelligence, and good judgement from a number of new people as well as that of Bates Lyons, who has been a member of the Budget Committee for a number of years. The entire board considers the proposed budget to be very thoughtful and responsive and one that addresses the immediate needs of our children and our schools with several programs which they feel are absolutely necessary to continue the progress that’s already been made. Unfortunately, there are some very large numbers attached to
this budget that have to do with meeting the continuing unfunded state and federal mandates.
Mr. Cavagnero noted that the board, the chairman, and the administration are well aware of the size of this budget, of the members involved, and the impact it has on parents, teachers, students and the taxpayers of Torrington.
This Board of Education has a proven track record over the past three years of showing some significant return on their investment. The Board of Finance has approved the Board of Education’s Budget for the past few years in order for them to make changes and improvements and there’s much data to prove that they’re moving in a positive direction. He pointed out the improved CNT scores, elementary school programs that are now in safe harbor, and a radically improved drop out rate at the High School. He announced that Torrington High School has received full accreditation from NEASC.
He turned the meeting over to Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Susan O’Brien.
Dr. O’Brien commended the Board of Finance for being kind, generous, and responsive in answering the Board of Education’s call for additional funding through the years. When the Board of Finance gives them dollars, she expects to show them in black and white objective outcomes that verify the validity and the wisdom of their investments. She told the Board of Finance that they could hold her accountable if this budget does not produce the outcome that she promises. Should they chose to fund this budget, she promised that there will be outstanding outcomes at the Middle School level that will be measurable.
Dr. O’Brien reviewed the Board of Education goals for the next year as follows:
1. Advance Academic Achievement
2. Complete NEASC Visitation - THS
3. Provide safe, welcoming school environment, focusing on the Middle School
(Dr. O’Brien noted that they would like to bring forward two programs that are specifically focused at the Middle School which will address the problematic areas.)
4. Comply with NCLB and SPED mandates
5. Utilize all resources effectively and efficiently.
The Board of Education’s priorities include the following:
1. Address NEASC visitation
2. Reduce drop-out rate - Alternative Program at TMS. (Dr. O’Brien noted that the drop out rate has decreased from 21% to 12%. In order to continue to impact in a favorable way on THS, they need to turn their attention to the Middle School. If they fix many of the difficult areas at the Middle School, it will certainly improve their High School.)
3. Advance Literacy Attainment
4. Advance AYP Plan (NCLB)
5. Examine and Expand the TAG Program.
Dr. O’Brien noted that the Budget Committee started with a 7.15% increase, and carved as much as they could to get down to 6.93%, unanimously approved by the Board of Education. The proposed budget increase is $4,121,165.00 or 6.93%. When you use the anticipated revenue increase from the State of $2,782,978.00, the net increase to taxpayers is $1,338,187.00 or 2.25%.
The contractual obligations, defined by collective bargaining agreements by various employee groups due to a lot of good, hard negotiating totals 2.86% which is far below the 3% and 4% seen in other municipalities. Fixed costs and supplies, like lighting, heating, substitute teachers, etc represents a 1.51% increase. The Special Education mandate required by law contains about a $1.6 million increase and the No Child Left Behind mandate comes in at about $120,000.00 totaling 2.98%.
Mr. Cavagnero pointed out that their current education budget, in addition to the Capital and Operational components, has a third component with Social Services that deals with remedial work, family care, counseling help, etc.
A number of these children need these services, whether they move in from out-of-district or not, they become Torrington’s obligation to do what they can to make their lives better. This is a very expensive proposition. To the extent that special education funding has not increased in either the state or federal level, the burden to fund the programs they employ to help these underprivileged children falls on local taxpayers. This is something that has to be addressed at the state and federal level.
Mr. Cavagnero pointed out that there has been a significant and radical reduction in discretionary spending year after year. As the program improvement funding goes down, our mandatory obligations are on the rise. More and more kids with special needs are moving into town and they are obligated to meet those needs.
Dr. O’Brien stated that, before they even started looking at program improvements, their mandatory obligations were 7.34%. The suggested program improvements for the upcoming year are basically two aspects for the Middle School, which total $74,730.00, or 0.13%. The capital has decreased by $323,036.00, or 0.54%. She assured the board that the reduction in capital will not harm the maintenance and upkeep of their buildings. The cuts came from initiatives, items they would like to have but can do without for a while longer.
Dr. O’Brien spoke about the proposed Upward Bound Program for troubled young people at the Torrington Middle School who are struggling with attendance, passing their courses, and appropriate behaviors. Those students are currently sitting in regular classrooms and tearing up instruction for other children with their chronic misbehaviors. These are not special education children, these are regular education children who, for one reason or another, are not living up to their academic potential, not behaving properly, and many times not attending school. They reached Middle School by social promotion in the early grades and they are at risk, not only for their academic achievement, but for dropping out of school as well. The Board of Education believes it’s important to intervene in
Middle School to turn this around.
The Upward Bound Program is a model being used in several places in CT and the Northeastern Region. Two board members visited this program model and were impressed with its effectiveness in serving troubled young people. Mr. Harnett visited the site twice and spoken with the consultants a number of times. The program would be aimed at 20 youngsters from the 7th grade and 20 from the 8th grade who have difficulty passing courses, maintaining regular attendance, etc. They would not be mixed in with the regular school population at the Middle School. Those students have to be willing to abide by the rules of this particular alternative education program and their parents have to sign a contract stating that they support their child participating fully in the program. The curriculum will be the same as in regular education, and the materials will be supplied by the various departments. The staffing is where you will see the requested increase. They will train existing teachers
from the Middle School who have volunteered for this program and they will pull a Math, English, Social Studies and Science teachers out of the mainstream, so there is no additional cost for staff. The only new position will be the School to Home Liaison at a cost of $50,000.00. This person will be a mixture of Truant Officer, Social Worker, Disciplinarian. When a student misbehaves, the discipline is immediate. The young person is taken out of the classroom into the hallway, their discipline is addressed and they go back into the teaching environment. If it continues, they go to time out and if it still continues, the School Liaison takes the student home to his/her parents. Typically, the students realize they can’t get away with anything after a month or so. The success rate is impressive. The program can be implemented with a number of grants that they already received in the district; the only new
cost to the board is the $50,000.00.
Dr. O’Brien further spoke about expanding the TAG Program at the Middle School. Again, this will be cost neutral for the purpose of new staff. Faculty from the Middle School have applied to teach this program. This will be a strand in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade of accelerated program for the top 10% of the students. This program will service approximately 40 students at each grade level with no staffing cost to this board. Those teachers will be trained free of charge in terms of tuition. Dr. Sally Reis gives the Board of Education twenty scholarships worth $1,000.00 a piece for tuition to UConn to train our teachers in teaching Talented and Gifted methodology. The board needs to accelerate and challenge the brightest
10% so they reach their full potential in Middle School and take accelerated college courses being offered at the High School. There are some expenses for additional materials and supplies, there is reimbursement for teachers to drive back and forth to UConn, and monies are dedicated for enrichment throughout the Torrington Middle School for all students.
Dr. O’Brien pointed out that the $1,444,322.00 spent at the High School in the 2006-07 budget year was used to establish that context by which they could address the NEASC accreditation. In the current year, $431,516.00 was spent on program improvement, again focusing mainly on the High School. This represents a 70% decrease in their request. The program improvement cost for the proposed budget is $74,730.00, which represents another 83% decrease in their requests. When they look at the three years of Dr. O’Brien’s superintendency, it represents a 95% decrease in what they are asking from the Board of Finance. She noted that any request in tough times is a large request, but she pledged to the Board of Finance that the Board of Education is an extraordinarily good
steward of public funds and as they ask the Board of Finance for increases, they are going to be small as they move forward.
The reason they can reduce this cost is because they are using existing resources in new and more creative ways to get a better and more powerful product. At the same time, teachers from the Middle School and High School worked closely with the board to re-design a new schedule. The Middle School will look like a hybrid next year. By moving from a Middle School model to a hybrid, they were able to save 4.5 teaching positions, which were cut from their budget. They already have economies and reductions of 4.5 teaching positions from Torrington Middle School without raising the class size by changing the schedule model.
Dr. O’Brien reviewed the Board of Finance’s investments achieved by becoming fully accredited, as noted in the NEASC letter sent to John G. Metallo, Principal of Torrington High School, dated April 24, 2008.
They included the following:
1. The board supported curriculum development for two years.
2. The board approved the funds for four instructional area leaders.
3. The board approved the funds for two part-time transition leaders
4. The board added eleven new teachers
5. The board supported a modified block schedule which supports flexibility for a variety of instructional practices.
Dr. O’Brien hoped the Board of Finance took pride in what they did, since the Board of Education could not have made these accomplishments without their support.
Mr. Cavagnero stated that, in trying to attract businesses, the first thing people look at and evaluate is the school system. Their achievement in becoming fully accredited as well as the program improvements in the High School and Elementary Schools goes a long way in building a certifiable case by our civic leaders that Torrington is very strong in public education and is a good place to raise children. The modest improvements proposed for the Middle School is designed to address the problems that have historically plagued Torrington and they feel it will become a win/win situation.
Mr. Rubino, Chairman of the Budget Committee reiterated that they started with a 7.15% increase and were able to bring it down to 6.93%. He noted that many people wanted the committee to increase the budget to purchase books totaling approximately $330,000.00, and this will be one of their goals in the future. The public also questioned why they were reducing staff by four teachers, but once the administration explained their reasoning, the budget committee felt comfortable with the decision to do so.
Chairperson Carbone opened the meeting for questions from the Board of Finance.
Mr. Farley noted that two items eliminated from the budget were grant eligible and asked if they would still be grant eligible in the future.
Director of Business Services Nancy Haynes noted that one of the items was a security grant at the High School, which they did not receive. The grant would have allowed them to purchase items such as huge planters to place in front of the entrance so no one could drive into the building. The other one was a two year grant for a generator, so they’ll look into it again next year.
Mr. Rubino said the committee couldn’t justify budgeting $290,000.00 for a generator in order to obtain a $50,000.00 grant.
Mr. Scoville asked if the changes in staffing at the Middle School would allow for a Math section, a Language Arts section, and so on.
Dr. O’Brien stated that, in the past, the Middle School had teams of teachers working together who designed multi-disciplinary units of study, and she’s never seen a middle school get the academic benefit for the amount of resources they invest. The team concept loses a lot of flexibility in assigning staff because you’re blocking the schedules of four people at a time.
Dr. O’Brien explained that four teachers have stepped forward to teach the Upward Bound Program. The economies of taking out the 4.5 teachers are included in the budget. They are working hard to try to find other places within the school system for these 4.5 teachers so they won’t lose their jobs. Depending on their teaching licences, those teachers can fill the holes created by retirements and resignations at no additional cost to the district.
Mr. Scoville asked if the Upward Bound Program was national.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that a group known as the Breakthrough Educational Services Group designed the model, and it’s being used throughout CT and the NE.
Mr. Scoville noted that the school system is continuing to get the same type of increases in the budget, but getting a whole lot less in new programming.
Dr. O’Brien stated that, as the amount of programming decreases, the amount for unfunded mandates increases.
Ms. Haynes noted that a good part of the $1.6 million for special education mandates is partially offset in revenue because those are students placed out-of-district for which the state does reimburse them a portion of the cost, depending on who makes the placement.
Mr. Bushka asked how the current placements stand as compared to what was budgeted a year ago.
Ms. Haynes noted that 88 were budgeted last year, and they currently have in excess of 100. They budgeted $1.8 million this year and they expect to see approximately $600,000.00 to $700,000.00 more in additional revenue for these placements. That’s what that $232,000.00 carry over number is on page 12. Mr. Rubino had mentioned that the Board of Education was recommending that the remaining funds from that particular grant be used to establish a Contingency like the $250,000.00 Contingency that was established for out-of-districts for the current year. They are hoping that this can be self-funded, and the $232,000.00 represents what they thought would be left over at the end of the year from that grant at the time they did the budget. Essentially, that’s money from the
city’s Undesignated Fund Balance which they’d like to use to chop at the self-sustaining type of contingency.
Mr. Bushka asked if they had some knowledge on how the current year will end in terms of expenditures.
Ms. Haynes said they will be over about $1million in out-of-district placements and approximately $150,000.00 in transportation related to out-of-district. They’ve offset a good portion of that through savings. Dr. O’Brien was asking the Board of Finance for the $250,000.00 in Contingency and then, with the additional $700,000.00 +/- that will come in from the state in excess cost grant, there will still be money left over. Even though they will initially exceed their budget, either through the expenditure credit on the excess cost grant combined with the $250,000.00 contingency, they’ll end in the black.
Mr. Bushka asked if they could identify specific costs in the budget recommended by NEASC accreditation, i.e. textbooks, instruction material acquisition.
Dr. O’Brien said they looked at their existing expenditure plan and directed some of those existing expenditures aimed at the High School into next year. One of NEASC’s recommendation is to continue that curriculum development which they commended the district for. Dr. Campbell has curriculum development money in her budget that would be the same amount carried forward next year to fulfill some of the requirements for NEASC at the High School. She stated that the entire list of NEASC recommendations are to be addressed by the district over the period of ten years. The School Improvement Committee will do a graphic with ten chunks and specific pieces will be addressed each year so not to have a large fiscal impact with any one year.
Mr. Bushka inquired about the increase at Southwest.
Ms. Haynes noted that it may be a shift in staff. She also noted that they implemented a re-organization plan of elementary schools whereby they changed the boundary lines. When they put the budget together last year, they weren’t sure how that would affect Southwest. Southwest and Torringford increased their population while Vogel Wetmore and Forbes decreased theirs. Part of that was a function of the removal of the portables at Forbes. They budgeted for eleven classroom teachers, but ended up having sixteen. That affected the increase at Southwest, as well as Torringford.
Mr. Bushka pointed out that the Board of Education’s Operational Budget increases on the average of 7% per year and asked if they see that as an on-going trend.
Dr. O’Brien said the budget of 05-06 was unusual for her because she had inherited it. As she recalls, it was rather troublesome because Special Education had been flat lined. By flat lining it for one year, they had to dramatically increase it the next year in order to get it on an even keel.
Mrs. Traub asked why they included the construction grant revenue in their budget and where was the offset for it.
Ms. Haynes indicated that the $1.8 million in next year’s budget doesn’t represent anything new; it represents the schedule of reimbursement that the city is due to get. There is no offset in the operating budget.
Mrs. Traub indicated that, because the city does not include the construction grant revenue and the Board of Education does, it actually puts the city’s share at 54%, not 51%. Should the Board of Education take the construction grant out of their revenue and re-calculate, they would see a different picture. School construction grant revenue is actually against construction projects and those are actually on the city side as opposed to the Board of Ed side.
Mrs. Traub wanted the Board of Finance to realize that the Board of Education had $288,000.00 in additional excess cost in their March report, and now the additional excess cost is anticipated to be between $600,000.00 and $700,000.00.
Ms. Haynes said she believed the March report gave a range based on 88% to 96% and it was also based on their expenditures because they knew they were going to have to use a portion of it to offset their expenditures and that’s how they came up with the $232,000.00.
Mrs. Traub asked the Board of Education if they supported the cuts outlined in a flyer sent to parents by school children, if a reduction is requested. She noted that one of the cuts outlined is the program improvements at the Middle School.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that the Board of Education was aware of the flyer. It was her work that she put together that she shared with faculty, administration, etc. because she wanted everyone to realize that the proposed budget is an absolutely skeleton. The only places they can go if a significant cut has to be taken is among those areas listed. All of them have direct consequences to children and programs.
Mrs. Traub asked what their Plan B would look like if they were not able to get the Upward Bound Program.
Dr. O’Brien said they didn’t have a Plan B that would replace Upward Bound.
They have no in-house model developed that they can put in place to serve these children. It would have to be business as usual.
Mr. Cavagnero said the flyer simply itemizes big ticket items they would have to look at in no particular order. He indicated that the Upward Bound Program was badly needed at the Middle School.
Mrs. Traub asked what the Board of Education might be in the process of doing in the coming year so that next year’s request from the Board of Education is not $9 million.
Mr. Cavagnero said the Board of Education can’t do anything about special ed. They’re trying to create some partnerships to regionalize some of these costs, and they’re trying to find easier and less expensive ways of handling special ed. The solution has to come from the state level. They have to step forward and fund special education. As a consequence, other wealthier school districts within the State of Connecticut will end up paying more of the lion’s share of those special ed needs.
Mrs. Traub strongly urged the Board of Education to take a hard stand in their negotiations next year on the Teacher’s contract to keep the 7% increases from becoming a trend. She also ask them to carefully consider any types of increases like salaries, raises, benefits, etc. in the next three years.
Mr. Cavagnero assured Mrs. Traub that the Board of Education was on the same page as she was.
Ms. Haynes added that the teachers pay the second highest percentage towards health insurance of any employment group in the city and the Board of Education. They pay 16% and the Administrators pay 17%.
Mr. Zeller asked where Torrington fits amongst other towns in terms of per pupil expenditure.
Ms. Haynes noted that Torrington ranked about 100 out of 169 towns, going from highest to lowest, and currently at approximately $11,163 per pupil. That number is calculated with the exclusion of in kind costs, construction costs, and special education costs. She noted that they were probably about in the middle of their ERG. (The Board of Education will furnish the specifics about this matter to the Board of Finance.)
Mr. Cavagnero thought the City Council could explore real specific data to find some correlation between new people moving into Torrington and how their children end up in our school system. Are they bringing with them more children who have more needs than normal and skewing our special ed costs higher? The data may suggest some solutions to address that area.
Dr. O’Brien said their Special Education percentage of students has remained fairly flat over the years at about 12% to 14%. The thing that has been a huge concept for them is the type of disabled condition. A mildly handicapped or learning disabled student can remain in their schools and use their own teachers. Mrs. Babcock started the current year with three new children that had not been part of our system in the past and each one was up to $150,000.00 because of their incredible level of need. They are seeing severely emotionally disturbed children who are difficult to even keep in the regular classroom because of their behaviors, both as a safety issue for the children, teachers, as well as safety issues in terms of hurting themselves. That’s the challenge they see.
She also pointed out that there’s an entire legal practice and procedure that determines whether or not a child is out-placed. They do their very best to serve the children in-house.
Mr. Zeller asked if any of their cuts dealt with capital expenditures, but not necessarily facility issues.
Mr. Rubino said no. As budget chair, he preferred seeing the presentation of the capital budget in March instead of in January when they’re still hashing out the ways and means of the budget and they can correlate with the administration and not offset those numbers.
Mr. Zeller pointed out that the accreditation created a number of one-time costs in the recent past and asked 1) how those were addressed in the proposed budget and 2) did the board see any savings? Were they such an insignificant portion of the accreditation issues that most of those costs ended up being re-occurring costs that will continue in the future?
Dr. O’Brien indicated that those costs showed up in several different ways.
For example, there was a $20,000.00 expenditure for the visiting team. That cost won’t reoccur for another ten years or so; however, the textbooks at the High School are now $8,000.00 higher, so part of the $20,000.00 has been shifted to other areas that are responsible to NEASC.
Mr. Zeller asked if the four instructional area leaders at the High School were certified positions and if they were also teaching. He asked if the leaders were an additional level, almost like administration?
Dr. O’Brien said she’d like to follow a model that she has seen utilized very successfully in other places. In the absence of department chairpersons at the High School and the Middle School, they decided to do instructional area leaders, which are part teachers and part curriculum leaders. As those people have begun training themselves in leadership, over the next few years, especially as the enrollments decrease at the High School, she’d like to push the leaders to full time curriculum development people and supervision people, but instead of 9 through 12, she’d like to do 6 through 12. It’s another type of those cost neutral use of their resources to get 6 through 12 Math supervision, English supervision, etc, in the curriculum areas.
Mr. Zeller asked if she thought there would be efficiencies whereby they wouldn’t be hiring additional teachers.
Dr. O’Brien said “Absolutely.”
Mr. Zeller cautioned the Board of Education that 7% increases in their budgets have been the trend and that they’re headed toward a $100 million budget in the years to come.
Mrs. Pesce pointed out that when Dr. O’Brien spoke previously about the kitchen, it wasn’t the cafeteria kitchen she was talking about, it was the Family & Consumer Science Program Kitchen.
Mrs. Pesce stated that we run a risk when we say the state is not supporting the City of Torrington enough because there are a number of communities that get nowhere the state funding that Torrington gets. The challenge for Torrington is that we are not poor enough. We do well with the funds that we get.
Mrs. Pesce said a piece of the proposed Middle School program was the attention given to students and asked where that piece was picked up in terms of paying attention to the student if the Board of Finance was not able to fund the Upward Bound Program, and how the board was making sure the children who don’t fall into the Special Ed or the TAG categories get taken care of.
Dr. O’Brien indicated that the individual teachers at the Middle School have done a yeoman’s job of connecting with families and children, so she wasn’t worried about losing that humane piece of connectivity between teachers and children. She made it clear that they don’t have a Plan B if they don’t get Upward Bound. These are unique and troubled children and the regular classroom teachers are having a very difficult time reaching them because of the complexity of the problems they bring to school. The bottom line is that they are detracting from the experience of all the other students trying to learn with their repetitive acting out and their other challenges. These are not special education children; they don’t get help from any other
program.
Mr. Bushka asked if this was a volunteer program.
Dr. O’Brien said yes it was. She said she was tired of having children’s experience in school torn up by one or two children who constantly misbehave in the classroom. Her philosophy is that no misbehaving child has the right to take away the educational opportunity for the other 18 or 20 children in that classroom. The commitment from the student, as well as the parent, are vital. If parents, for one reason or another, refuse to avail their children of this support and this last best chance at the Middle School to make things work, and if the child is increasingly misbehaving, she plans to expel them.
Mr. Cavagnero agreed with Mrs. Pesce in that the Board of Education has received a significant, generous amount of funding from the state over the last several years. His comments that the solution to special education, in his opinion, was not that they needed to get more of their money from the state, but rather that the actual funding mechanism for special education needs to be overhauled at the state level.
Mrs. Carbone asked why a capital lighting expenditure at East School wasn’t included in the proposed budget when CL&P grants are available to fund this type of project. She noted that Mr. Farley had asked a year ago for the board to look into it.
Ms. Haynes said it was moved because when the board was initially reviewing the entire plan, they were trying to balance out the years and make them somewhat even. Some projects were split into two year projects. Since this was such a huge project at $100,000.00, it wasn’t a priority when the existing lighting was sufficient.
Mr. Bascetta added that the ceiling tiles were also involved in the project, adding labor to the costs.
Ms. Haynes indicated that there will always be a CL&P program available in some way, shape or form.
Mrs. Carbone asked for a clarification of the carryover in revenue.
Ms. Haynes indicated that the Board of Education is anticipating more money than the $1.8 million that they budgeted as revenue for the Agency Placement Grant and state laws are specific that the money has to be spent for the purpose of out-of-district costs. They saw the additional revenue that would be coming in based on the March projection of expenditures, there would be a certain dollar amount left over at the end of the year, which usually goes into the Undesignated Fund Balance. From there, they thought it would be appropriate to self-fund that contingency; in essence, they’re asking for a contingency again.
Mrs. Carbone noted that they previously said that their anticipated expenditures for out-of-district placements and transportation were running about $1 million over, so how are their agency placement or excess costs would generate any carry over.
Ms. Haynes said after all of the board’s expenses, there will be $232,000.00 left over at the end of the year.
Mrs. Carbone asked if the $232,000.00 is reflective of the fact that they anticipate the release of the $250,000.00 contingency that was put in place last year.
Ms. Haynes said yes.
Mrs. Carbone said it was her belief that the principals on special assignment were on a one year assignment and asked if the board was still looking at moving the administrative staff around.
Dr. O’Brien said “Of course.”
Mrs. Carbone also noted that the consultants brought in to help with NEASC are still in the proposed budget. When they talk about cuts such as those listed in the flyer that was sent home to the parents, including the possibility of cutting the Upward Bound Program, she wondered if keeping the consultants in the budget was an effective use of their resources as opposed to the Upward Board program.
Dr. O’Brien said the consultants who helped them prepare for NEASC during those two years did remarkable work and jump started the whole process. There are now only 2 consultants who currently work at the Middle School to do the articulation on the 6 through 12 program. They are working at a reduced rate for a smaller number of consultant days but bringing the same talents and philosophy to our Middle School teachers so we’ll have articulation in terms of designing curriculum and building from one year to the next. These consultants work in a number of other school districts throughout the state and they charge Torrington 2/3rds of what they charge other districts.
Ms. Haynes added that the Consultant expense has been reduced by $42,000.00.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Mr. Bushka, seconded by Mr. Scoville, the boards voted unanimously to adjourn the joint meeting of the Board of Finance and the Board of Education at 7:00 p.m.
ATTEST: JOLINE LeBLANC
ASST. CITY CLERK
| 
