New Haven Independent

Posted by: Pat Santoro | December 18, 2009 1:34 PM

Maybe we should start looking at what the Guilford School system is doing. They had one of the best records in the state with respect to test scores and all over accomplishments. I am sure they would be more than happy to share the secret to their success.

Posted by: Jay | December 18, 2009 3:03 PM

I don't believe that the RTM "took a chance", I do believe they "made a stand". It is good to see some backbone, and some common sense, coming to the fore in this new session, unlike the last RTM and their unfortunate response to the teachers' contract. When the Board of Education shows signs of making progress in correcting what is wrong in our schools, I am confident that the RTM will be willing to fully fund their requests. This is ALL about accountability. Hopefully, next time, the Board of Education will secure a proper contract before bringing it to the RTM.

Posted by: Susan Barnes | December 18, 2009 11:16 PM

Yes, they took a stand. I wonder if some of the Dems voted against the contract because they were weary of Lisa getting all the accolades for her courageous vote against the teachers contract last spring. Interesting, too, was the number of missing RTM members. Is it the old "if you don't want to go on record, stay home and avoid the vote" mentality? Those diehards who voted yes are really out in left field. On what planet do they live? Does the mess the economy, the state, town families and their neighbors all share not have any meaning to them? Shame on all six of them. Just WHAT do these administrators do for the children? It seems to me they are little more than a bunch of paper pushers. If they are supposed to impact the students, it would appear they are a negative if test scores mean anything. And might I add the word GREEDY? WHY should they be getting raises in this economy? They too should be ashamed of themselves. All with good jobs, substantial salaries, generous benefits - yet their choice is to rape the public because they feel they can because they are in the UNION and will go to binding arb! SHAME ON ALL OF THEM. Where does it end? When everyone is taxed to death - and, in this country, BEYOND considering inheritance taxes on income that has already been taxed to the nines. Abolish the unions that have outlived their usefulness, elect some people that possess common sense to BOE and start taking the steps that will put ALL aspects of education back in the hands of the people paying the bills.

Posted by: Marie Watson | December 19, 2009 8:26 AM

Readers should know that:
1) Before all negotiations begin, the First Selectman meets with both sides of the bargaining team and gives them a percentage number they are told to stay at or under. If the contract is 2%, (which it was), than that number is at or under the town's recommended number.
2) The RTM has always (at least recently) appointed a member of the Education Committee to sit at the negotiating table. This year, there was no RTM representation.
3) The Special Meeting of the RTM to vote on the Administrator's contract was chosen for the same night and time as the BOE regular December meeting. The Education Committee of the RTM was told of the conflict the night they voted to recommend the contract to the full RTM, but chose to go with the conflicting night anyway.
4)Branford does not use salary increases or non-increases to reward or punish teachers or administrators. If this is a position the town wants to take, than the discussion belongs in a different forum. Not after a contract has been approved for recommendation to the full RTM. This is not to say that we shouldn't hold our teachers and administrators accountable.

Posted by: teachergal | December 19, 2009 9:49 AM

Susan makes some very good points. I have to agree with her. As a teacher, I see many paper pushing bureaucrats and we always wonder what they are doing all day. I'm sure their not twiddling their thumbs but I have to say most of the principals I have the opportunity to work with are not "leaders" which is what they should be. Do they not have clear vision statements? Do they not work as a team? Is it their way or the highway? Principals, take a look in the mirror. Now is not the time to be fighting for raises. Be happy for you nice salaries and jobs and try to improve upon what you do in your school. The challenge is now, rise to the occasion!

Posted by: Steve M. | December 19, 2009 11:34 AM

Marie Watson,

To point 1: Unfortunately, the First Selectman is not on the RTM. Additionally, the contract has little chance of being under 2%, as that would mean health care costs will be exactly throughout the 3 years of the contract.

To point 2: Why was someone not screaming for this during negotiations? If it is known it must also pass the RTM, why even consider discussing it without an RTM representative present?

To point 3: I was at that RTM education meeting, and heard no such thing, but even if I missed it, why was a letter not sent to the Moderator?

To point 4: Even if performance was not a factor, every position in the agreement is already a 6 figure salary, was overpaid as compared to their equals statewide (not judging performance), and, believe it or not, we are in a recession. The RTM represents the people, and in this case did so admirably. Ask 10 of your neighbors what they would do, and you would see quite clearly how the public feels.

If a salary increase is not a reward for performance, then it is simply to keep pace with inflation. Until November, we had 8 consecutive months of negative inflation, or deflation. Should the taxpayers be expecting a refund?

Posted by: Teacher retired | December 19, 2009 4:58 PM

Teachergal...one of the problems is we don't have Principals anymore, they have become Administrators.

So,they stay in their offices and administrate.

Posted by: Fassett | December 19, 2009 7:26 PM

This vote makes sense both in terms of accountability and economics. It should send a message that we already pay them handsomely to not only educate our children but to ensure they are not victims of bad educational policies.

However, the buck doesn't stop with administrators only, it stops with the Superintendent and the BOE. While the RTM can cast their votes to send a message to teachers and administrators, the salaries of the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent are not subject to RTM oversight as these positions are not part of a collective bargaining association.

The current school administration has presided over four years of steadily declining scores, huge expansion of initiatives, and major curricula changes all without clearly stated and communicated metrics for success. Parental dissatisfaction was meet with obfuscation, lack of transparency, and no meaningful communication.

These failures did not happen in a vacuum, but, rather, with the complicity of the BOE who essentially disregarded their role of oversight to rubberstamp the actions of the Central Office. To an outsider, it would certainly seem as if the Superintendent was the tenth member of the board rather the object of it.

In the end, the issues facing the Branford school district will out-live this superintendent but the BOE must understand that there is a crisis of confidence in their ability get the job done from adequately addressing the pressing need to remediate the damage done to choosing a new superintendent who will understand the needs of the district, restore moral, instill parental confidence, and, most importantly, see that our children are truly being educated.

Posted by: Fassett | December 19, 2009 9:50 PM

I would submit, Ms. Watson, that the job of the BOE is not to act as an adjunct agent of either the teachers' union or the administrators' union. By your reckoning, these groups deserve their raises irrespective of performance. Where's the accountability?

Posted by: susan barnes | December 20, 2009 2:30 PM

First, Watson lays responsibility on the First Selectman, next on the RTM Education Committee, then on the RTM and finally, on the public in general. Does BOE claim responsibility for anything at all to do with our schools? One of the things I find most interesting is that the administrators are in a union. Unions were started when women, children and men worked terrible jobs, suffered terrible conditions and collected terrible pay. The lowest paid administrator in Branford makes 106K if I recall correctly and the salaries increase from there. They should ALL be ASHAMED of themselves for being in a union, for considering a raise in this economy, and for ignoring the joblessness of many of the people paying their salaries. I find the entire situation DISGUSTING - PARTICULARLY, WHEN TEST SCORES ARE DECLINING. Perhaps, all of them should go the way of Ms. Farina.

Posted by: Tom Burns | December 20, 2009 9:11 PM

So test scores are the sole measure all of these education experts believe is how we should measure a student's performance? I hope all of you who posted that opinion either made a mistake or are planning on leaving the education arena for all of our children's sake. Please say it's not so---Tom

Posted by: Fassett | December 21, 2009 10:30 AM

By no means, Mr. Burns, should one years' test scores alone dictate teacher/administrator performance. Common sense clearly suggests there are often mitigating circumstances to be considered and analyzed when there are blips on standardized testing. People are reacting, however, to the four year trend of *declining* scores.

It's the trend that's a better indicator of poor performance in Branford and for that everyone should be held to account from the Superintendent to teachers/administrators to students and to parents.

On examination, both administrators and teachers have had to cope with implementing an unprecedented number of new initiatives while simultaneously trying to ensure quality education. Something had to give and it did - student achievement. Talk to any parent and you'll hear wonderful stories of talented and motivated teachers in this system - they just happen to be completely overwhelmed.

Administrators are paid well to act as managers, albeit educational managers, and most people wouldn't want the incredible responsibilities they bear. However, as managers, parents expect them to be leaders by taking a stand for programs or initiatives that don't make sense. It's not as if they haven't heard from parents.

In the end, our top leadership, aided and abetted by the BOE, have bulldozed programs through the system with no means to measure success or efficacy. Let's get the right people in those spots to steer a better course.

Posted by: Steve M. | December 21, 2009 1:30 PM

This was not a decision reached simply by looking at test scores; there were numerous factors. In the end, however, it came down to common sense: Our administrators are paid, on average, 13% more than the statewide counterparts, those with the same degrees and experience. Conversely, test scores are trending downward and below state averages, even in categories where the state numbers are dropping. No one doubts that they work hard, and in a different economic climate, this agreement may have been approved despite the above argument. But in this climate, it is not feasible. These individuals are paid more than their peers and produce less than their peers.

It is for this reason I found it disappointing to see my fellow Democrats vote in favor of this agreement. No doubt many choose a political party based on social issues: one's stance on gay marriage, abortion rights, or the environment, among others. But we are also the party of "spread the wealth", of leveling the economic playing field, which would certainly include not handing more taxpayer dollars to those already being compensated with six figure salaries and an excellent health care plan in a recession. In fact, one might even understand voting for the teachers contract, as many receiving raises there are making far more palatable salaries. In this case, the dropping scores may have been the final straw for many to vote against it, but it was hardly the primary factor.

Posted by: Jeff Clark | December 21, 2009 2:01 PM

Marie Watson said "Before all negotiations begin, the First Selectman meets with both sides of the bargaining team and gives them a percentage number they are told to stay at or under."

Is this really the way it works, and if so why do we have negotiating teams at all?

Who exactly was on the negotiating team for the BOE or Town?

Posted by: Jay | December 22, 2009 1:29 PM

STEVE M.,

Just to be clear, I believe there were several Democrats who voted against the contract. In fact, as I recall, there was even one Democrat who voted against the "more palatable" (not to this pay slashed, lay-off threatened taxpayer) teachers contract.

Posted by: Steve M. | December 22, 2009 2:33 PM

Jay,

I am not quite sure if there was something I missed, but I am well aware (from being present at the vote), as is every reader of the first line of this article, that there were Democrats that voted against it; the vote was 15-6. I question only those that voted in favor of it.

Posted by: Jay | December 23, 2009 1:15 PM

Steve M.,

No argument from me here, but the first line states "By a 15-6 vote, a bipartisan Representative Town Meeting (RTM) rejected a three-year school administrators’ contract." And later, the article states "The Democrats, who hold the majority on the RTM, provided the votes to reject the contract, which now goes to binding arbitration, a costly legal process." So, I am just wondering, given that you painted the Democrats with a rather broad brush, how many of the Democrats "present and voting" voted "for" and how many voted "against". Unfortunately, I could not be present at the vote, as the commission on which I serve was meeting simultaneously. Come to think of it, when there is a roll call vote, I think The Branford Eagle would be doing a great public service by providing a "voter scorecard" of sorts...

Posted by: marcriccio | December 24, 2009 9:16 AM

The idea of having a "RTM Voter Scorecard" website page is an excellent concept so Voters can keep track of their RTM representatives track records. So when election time comes around, Voters can learn how their RTM members voted and start holding the RTM members accountable.

I am not sure the Citizens of this town or this State understand how the Government process is broken. Until someone can make the public comprehend the long-term consequences of decades of governmental structural missteps along with the inability to say no to anyone....coupled with the fantasy there is some unlimited treasure chest available to us, must be reconciled soon.

I will make the suggestion to the American Eagle to provide this information. If they aren't interested in providing that capability, I will see what I can arrange under the private sector.

Posted by: Upset Voter | December 24, 2009 10:59 AM

I disagree with Ms. Watson's statement #4, "Branford does not use salary increases or non-increases to reward or punish teachers or administrators".

This is absurd. A merit increase is based on prior 12 months performance. In the real world, you do not receive merit increases if you do not perform to expectations. In fact, if you fail to perform to expectations, you either are terminated or at minimum put on a performance improvement plan temporarily to demonstrate your value to remain with the organization.

If our administrators performed to expectations then their increases should then be factored against the marketplace consistent with the private sector. As many have stated, the marketplace is not so "rich" these days, so one with think increase would be limited. I know it may sound unfair, but again, in the real world, many workers went without pay raises this year, despite good individual performance. Their employers' response to them was "the economy was bad and that raises were limited” (if not eliminated altogether). And those were the lucky ones, many as the statistics show, received pink slips due to corporate downsizing this year.

Ms. Watson's thought process for pay raises is an example of the elected official’s mindset that is crippling our economy. When will federal, state and local governments and the elected officials who dictate how taxpayer dollars are spent, going to realize that there is not an evergreen money tree from which they can continue to spend. This tree has been so abused this past year on all levels of government it looks like the tree from "A Charlie Brown Christmas".

I hope for a better 2010 and for elected officials to see that the impact of their spending actions is burying those of us trying to make a living and provide for our families.

This was a good start sending this contract to further review, however, the RTM (many of which were around last year) voted in favor of a more lucrative teacher's contract and this RTM just voted for a police contract that offered higher increases than the administrator contract they voted down. Talk about mixed messages. No wonder the town fears arbitration, they are not consistent in how they negotiate across all the union’s contracts and this is an Achilles heal for the town in the arbitration process. The administrator’s contract had the lowest % increase of these three recent contracts.

Posted by: Peter Black | December 24, 2009 11:20 AM

The three Democrats (Docknevich, Merrick , and Sullivan) and two Republicans (Greenalch and Rowe) voted to accept the contract. Voting to send it to arbitration were nine Democrats and seven Republicans: Avitable (D), Baker (D), Black (R) , Bodner (R), Brooks (D), Bruno (D), Chapman (D), Cosgrove (R), Flanigan (R), Hanlon (D), Muniz (D), Nardella (R), O’Donnell (D), Riccio (R) , Salvaggio (D), and Twohill (R) . As Moderator, Thayer did not vote. All Republicans attended. Eight voting Democrat members were absent: Amore, Davis, Majority Leader Giardiello, Lambert, Maynard, Reiners, Sterling, and Torelli.
The following non-voting RTM Members were present but declined to express any opinion: Selectmen DaRos (D), Walsh (D), and Opie (R) , and Town Clerk Kelley (D). Absent were non-voting members Treasurer Banca (D) and Town Attorney Clendenan(D?).

Posted by: Jay | December 24, 2009 12:15 PM

Peter Black,

Thank you.

Upset Voter,

I think you got most of the points quite right, but IMHO I disagree with your characterization of "Talk about mixed messages. No wonder the town fears arbitration, they are not consistent in how they negotiate across all the union's contracts and this is an Achilles heal for the town in the arbitration process." In fact, I feel quite the opposite, I think the RTM has considered each contract on the merits of that particular contract (getting it VERY wrong in the case of the teachers). If anything, that should (not to say that it will) strengthen the town's case in arbitration. I supported both the Police and Fire contracts. BTW, I am a "private sector" employee who has not seen a pay raise in longer than I can remember...

Posted by: Fassett | December 26, 2009 7:46 AM

It does seem counter intuitive that both sides in the school negotiations should have the limits of their bargaining determined even before the negotiating begins! However, in the end, the spectre of binding arbitration is always part of the subtext in the arguments for passing these contracts. Binding arbitration, one should know, is NOT about performance, student achievement, test scores, merit, etc.

It is simply about the municipality's *ability* to pay.

Posted by: Fassett | December 27, 2009 7:20 PM

Teachers/Administrators contracts have absolutely no bearing on student achievement. Both parties seek the First Selectman's guidance on increases as its first best estimate of what the town claims it can absorb in new taxes. Should the contract go to binding arbitration, the mediator *only* looks at the town's ability to pay and *nothing* else.

It's the way the law works. Perhaps it's time for a change. Call your state legislators.

Posted by: Pat Santoro | December 28, 2009 4:21 PM

I believe the Branford taxpayer is finally being heard. After last years debacle with the teacher's contract, the RTM really had no choice but to listen and react accordingly.