Assistant Superintendent Barbara Senges talked at length about the District Data Teams, noting that technically, this is the last year of the 3-year District Improvement Plan mandated by Middletown's performance levels on the Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMTs). In a recent meeting, it was decided that instead of writing a new plan for the next three years, the district will continue with its current plan. This is for two reasons: first, all the parts of the original plan aren't implemented yet, and second, the original plan is working and Middletown is off the "needs improvement" list for the first time in several years. Senges also passed on several compliments from the State Representative who visits all 16 districts in CT with improvement plans: "She said that in all the districts she visits, no one has the depth of conversation Middletown has...and she's never seen a group with the same level of instructional leadership as we do."
The hot seat for the evening belonged to Facilities Director Ken Jackson as there are still issues at MHS with a failed retaining wall, lighting and acoustical problems in the pool area, and cracked seats in the auditorium. The good news, though, is that the seat company is replacing all 1,000 auditorium seats under warranty. Jackson also asked the BOE for $5000 for an Engineering Study to tackle the electrical issues at Woodrow Wilson Middle School. The school had its second electrical fire on January 19th, but the problem stems from CL&P's phase dropout issues on that side of town. While an infrastructure update will ultimately solve the problem once and for all, that's CL&P's decision, and in the meantime, Jackson has to take measures to prevent future fires and to protect power to the district's server. When WWMS loses power, power to the district's server is also lost, which affects the ability of every school in the district to access the internet. This loss of internet service also means the district can't use its Honeywell Emergency system to notify parents. This was obvious on Jan. 19 when the school was evacuated and kids sent home early, but the district couldn't call parents to tell them their kids were on their way home. Jackson told the Board he wants to have an electrical study of the system to see how to get surge protection, but that he will also be looking to install an emergency generator to protect power to the server.
The most interesting topic of the evening, though, came from a quick comment during the public session. A gentleman (and I didn't catch his name, I apologize) thanked the BOE for returning SRO's (School Resource Officer) back to Middletown High. "The teachers really appreciate it and the officers are excited to be there and they're really settling in." Then the gentleman went on to add, "I also urge the board to consider some kind of policy to control the slanderous comments made during the Public Session...people just get up here and say stuff that isn't true."
MHS Principal Robert Fontaine then gave a "State of Middletown High" speech. (This was still during the public comment session where speakers have 3 minutes and when the timer beeps, BOE Chairman Ted Raczka cuts the speaker off mid-sentence.) Fontaine had lots of nice things to say about how the climate is improving at MHS and how the data teams are making are improving instruction and how suspensions are down. Notably, though, when the 3-minute timer beeped, Fontaine kept talking...
Toward the end of the meeting when Policy Committee Chair Sally Boske was updating the Board on policy issues, she noted that the committee would be considering a "policy on public comment."
Now why is this interesting (especially to this EYE reporter)? Just over a year ago, the BOE amended Bylaw 9325(a) to limit public comment to 3 minutes a person down from 5 minutes a person. The Board has been routinely criticized for this limitation. The MHS Principal could have been added to the agenda in any number of places as a legitimate report to the board, but he choose to use public comment time and he wasn't limited to 3 minutes. And it wasn't like he was just allowed to finish his sentence or even a paragraph. He continued speaking for at least another 2 -3 minutes past the allotted time. And now, the policy committee will be looking to create what kind of policy?
Bylaw 9325(a) currently allows "any individual or group to address the Board concerning any subject that lies within its jurisdiction..." The only restriction possible is that the subject of the public address has to be a matter that the BOE has control over. So, for example, someone couldn't complain to the BOE about how public works removes or doesn't remove snow from corners in Middletown. I'll be curious to see just what comes next...a tax-paying citizen can only talk to his or her elected officials in a public setting if...if...the subject is nice and doesn't point out any deficiencies? Oh wait, maybe only if the citizen has personal knowledge of a problem (meaning he or she was actually there on school property to witness the concern) and it's the second Wednesday of the fourth month of an odd year.
Hmm. I guess I'm going to have to dig out my first amendment again...
9 comments:
Pretty soon Ed you won't even be able to write about them! Control freaks! Makes you wonder what they are hiding
Ted Raczka will be at the Westfield Residents meeting on Monday. You can voice their negative comments at that time.
maybe it wouldn't be necessary if there was civil discourse in this country, including Middletown.
This is just horrible. Limiting those whose taxes fund our schools is wrong. Yet the people of Middletown blindly re-elect them every other year.
The BOE works for the people of Middletown not the other way around.
JAM
You do a great job of reporting on the BOE so I am suprised by your statements that imply that the possible updating of the policy on public comment means that your first amendment rights are going to be taken away. From the story it appears that there is only speculation about what changes, if any, will be proposed yet you leap from the comment from one citizen that speakers should not be allowed to slander people, to a conclusion that the board is going to outlaw criticism or even comments. As a reporter I think you have an obligation to do a little more to keep your speculation separate from your reporting.
I think that there are very legitimate reasons to examine the policy and that changes can be made that are consistent with the Constitution. Keep in mind that in the not too distant past there was a "gadfly" in town who used to use the public session of BOE meetings to accuse wide swathes of the community of dealing drugs, extortion, bribery and other crimes and issue veiled and not so vailed threats of violence. That combined with the tragic events earlier this year make it prudent for the board to examine their policy and consider whether it should explicitly state advocating violence and threats of violence are not allowed in the public session.
I recognize your concern that prohibitions against "slander" can be used to silence legitimate criticism, but I don't see any factual basis to assume that any such change is being considered or that the policy changes will actually violate your constitutional rights. Even the first amendment is not absolute. I should be allowed to stand up and say that the superintendent is a bum and should be fired, but do I really have a first amendment right to use the public session to accuse a certain teacher or even a student of being a whore who fornicates with parrots, robs banks and does crack cocaine with two year olds?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and speculations, but this time I think that there should have been a clearer separation between your opinions and your reporting. You can see that the first anonymous commenter has accepting your speculation as fact, and that really isn't being fair.
To David Sauer,
This is a BLOG, not a newspaper. JAM has every right to inject her opinion.
Christine:
When JAM expressly identifies himself in the story as a REPORTER then I think it is fair to hold him to the standards for a reporter, not just a blogger. As I said, JAM has every right to his opinions and he is free to express them on the Eye, but if he is a reporter he ought to separate REPORTING from editorializing.
Dear David Sauer:
While I do normally have a commentary heading that separates my meeting summary from any commentary I might provide, I sort of assumed the severe sarcasm at the end would be a clue it was my opinion. I'm sorry you missed that and I'll work harder to be clearer next time.
It's also very tempting to get into an argument over whether EYE contributors are actually reporters or not, but I do concede that I don't get paid for what I do. Maybe that's the distinguishing difference, but I would argue that "official reporters" don't consistently offer the same level of detail that the EYE does.
Finally, you missed the real point I was trying to make at the end, so I apologize for not saying it directly. Let me try again:
When the BOE last amended its public comment rules, it dropped the amount of time a person could address the board from 5 minutes to 3 minutes. This also happened to be right in the middle of a highly stressful and contentious re-districting process. Never once, in all the meetings that I've attended, have I ever heard anyone go more than about 10 seconds over the allotted time without the BOE Chairman vigorously cutting him or her off.
So right at the time when you would think the BOE would want to hear from parents about what was happening, steps were taken to limit public interaction with the board.
Then, at Tuesday's meeting, a principal was allowed to ignore the BOE's policy as he talked about the great stuff happening at the high school. That happened at the same time other comments were made about reviewing the public comment rules to be more restrictive about what can be said.
Pardon my confusion, but I'm confused, and I get sarcastic when I'm confused. Rules are either rules or they aren't, and I don't think the BOE can afford to send mixed messages right now. The Chairman already has broad authority to decide whether the topic someone is speaking on fits the scope of the policy, and he could easily interrupt the speaker and direct him or her to refocus their comments on an appropriate subject. Quite honestly, the BOE has so many other things it's supposed to be doing right now (like looking for $5 million to fund its proposed budget), that I can't see how it would be productive to try to craft such a policy. There are already anti-slander remedies available in our legal system, so wouldn't it be redundant for the BOE to create its own?
I agree that the First Amendment does have its limitations in the realm of public safety, but notice those limitations aren't listed specifically in the Constitution. It's a slippery slope to cover every possible situation that might or might not be slander, and that decision is a legal one made by the courts anyway, not the BOE.
Even in the case of trying to prohibit comments that, in your words, "explicitly state advocating violence and threats of violence," does this mean that (hypothetically speaking) a parent couldn't ask the BOE during a public comment session to name the football field after a former MHS student who died a hero in battle in Afghanistan? Since war is violent and not everyone agrees with it, wouldn't the BOE be advocating the use of violence by re-naming the football field?
I admit my example is extreme, but that's the point. The current restriction is matters pertaining to the Board's authority, and the Chairman can declare that a person's comments don't pertain and the matter is done. It's that simple and it doesn't need to be complicated.
But then again, that's just my opinion.
JAM:
At the risk of beating a dead horse, the comments on this story (other than mine) indicate that at least some readers took your sarcasm to be a statement of fact, hence my concern.
You raise some excellent points, and you do a great job of demonstrating the difficulty in allowing free speech without infringing on other's rights.
I certainly feel that you, and the others on the "staff" of the Eye are deserving of the title "reporter". You bring a detailed understanding of the issues and the context surrounding them that is lacking in any other news source. I hope that my comments did not appear to imply that I do not consider you to be a "real" reporter. If I did, I apologize.
Post a Comment