Aliyya Swaby Photo
Joyner: “Micromanaging is not necessarily a bad word.”
In their latest clash with the schools superintendent, Board of Education members made and passed motions allowing them to manage central office salaries, hiring, and spending on outside contracts, sparking fierce debate on an increasingly divided panel.
Frustrated by what they perceive as lack of access to basic information about the school system, three board members chose to go a more aggressive path at Monday night’s board meeting, giving Superintendent Garth Harries and his staff strict deadlines for desired changes instead of a previous hands-off approach.
Members’ actions sparked debate over the role the body should play in working with – or outside of –- the superintendent to change policy in the schools, in a meeting that lasted more than five hours.
Edward Joyner, a recent elected member, made the first of three sets of motions — demanding a moratorium of outside contracts for new or extended personal or professional services contracts through the end of 2016.
Under the original motion, new contracts could get approval only if cited as “emergency situations” and agreed upon by a new “Contract Committee” with five board members including Mayor Toni Harp.
A fierce debate tempered the motion. Ultimately the board voted unanimously to have Superintendent Harries create a priority list of contracts essential to running the schools and explain them in detail to the finance committee.
Mayor Harp called the original motion an “overreaction” from the board and refused to support it. “We can’t tie the hands of New Haven Public Schools to do work because we’re not getting information,” she said.
Joyner argued the board needs to oversee outside contracts for services including professional development, since departments in central office do not send them out to bid before granting them to out-of-state companies. Many contracts start before board members receive or agree to sign them, which leaves the board on the hook for payment.
And the work being done in the contracts could be done for free or at a lower price by local educational experts on the board or in nearby institutions, he said.
Members Alicia Caraballo and Darnell Goldson supported the initial motion. “We cannot continue to do business as we have done,” Caraballo said. “There’s too much money out the door here” without oversight.
The Operations and Finance Committee already has the power to approve or deny approval of most contracts, Harries pointed out. “I’m concerned this will grind business to a halt.”
Gonzalez.
“I don’t think we should be micromanaging the superintendent,” said member Daisy Gonzalez. “We have to sit and work with him.” She suggested reworking the bylaws to pin down exactly what the board wants to accomplish with Harries and holding central office staff accountable for their work.
“Micromanaging is not necessarily a bad word,” Joyner said, especially when members are not getting results they want.
Student members Kimberly Sullivan and Coral Ortiz pushed against the original motion, arguing it could damage students’ educations by affecting their ability to receive certain needed services. They said they would have abstained from a vote on the new version of the resolution, if they were voting members of the board.
Personnel Motions Pass
Former board President Carlos Torre made the second motion of the night, requesting the board organize a special committee to work with Harries to reorganize the structure of central office.
The final structure would be submitted to the Finance Committee by May 30, to coincide with budget deliberations. The full board would vote on it by June 30 and then work with Harries to refine it throughout the upcoming school year.
He said the Board of Alders has expressed confusion throughout the budget process about the way central office is configured and where the money would actually go.
The information would help the board make cuts in central office, Goldson said. “If we have to cut, we will cut as far away from children as possible.”
Che Dawson voted not to accept the motion. All other board members voted yes.
Caraballo attempted to make two motions Monday requesting the board be more involved in the hiring process. Currently the board approves personnel sheets at each full meeting.
One motion requested Harries develop and present to the Teaching and Learning Committee a protocol for how to include the board in the process of creating new or renamed positions within the school system.
“It’s not a question of micromanaging,” she said. As other districts are talking about laying off staff, New Haven does not know exactly how many full time staff positions are being created regularly in its schools or in central office, she said.
The motion passed unanimously.
Caraballo also attempted to make a motion requesting information about the hiring of a new chief academic officer, including the names of the interview team by May 16 and the entire list of candidates by June 15.
Harp: Be “collegial” in working with the superintendent.
Mayor Harp pressed Caraballo to be more “collegial” and to just ask Harries what his process is for hiring in that position. At first, she refused to recognize the motion or Goldson’s second of that motion, especially since Caraballo made the motion outside of the allotted time for new business.
“If I knew what the rules were, I would follow them,” Joyner said, supporting Caraballo’s right to make a motion.
Harries responded to the question without a motion. The interview process will be completed by June 15, he said, and a team will start screening internal and external candidates this week. He agreed to give the board a full list of candidates and a list of the top candidates.
Caraballo told the Independent after the meeting that she has asked for information and made policy recommendations during her time on the board – with “no follow through.” This way, she said, a fire is lit under Harries and central office staff.
“We’ll see if we do better” with this method of getting results, she said. “Let’s hope it does.”
Harries said board members were making motions as a way of “expressing priorities for change to the ways we have worked for a long time … Ideally, I think we would be working from a stronger base of shared facts.”
He said he shares many of those priorities, including transparency and directed change. “It is what it is, in terms of the method,” he said. “They are the board. They have that prerogative.”
Actionable demands for leadership and accountability. what a change.
A few things:
1) I'd like to see a moratorium on proposing/creating any new schools for at least 2 years until the Board and NHPS can articulate, fund, and execute a clear plan for improving the schools we already have
2) Kudos to the student members for articulating the concerns of their fellow students. One wonders if teachers should also have representation on the Board. It doesn't seem to be any more of a conflict of interest than allowing a charter school administrator to serve.