Paul Bass Photo
Jason Bartlett.
(Opinion) Each day someone invariably asks the mayor of our city to accomplish a task or for an appointment or to take action for the better good. Under the auspices of her office, the mayor’s actions should always be ethical, moral and within the law.
However, from time to time people ask the mayor to accomplish things that are unreasonable. This is the case with Board of Education member-‘elect’ Darnell Goldson’s public ask of the mayor (in this article, “In Board of Ed’s Math, 7 = 8”) to demonstrate “leadership” by rescinding a mayoral appointment to the Board of Education and removal of one of the existing Board of Education members.
Goldson uses certain sections of the City Charter and omits relevant clauses to convince the public of his perspective and self-interest. According to Goldson, the Mayor can remove appointees as expressed in City Charter Article II, Section 15.b and Title II Article II Section 20 (5). Goldson cites, “the requirements of the public service demand said appointee’s removal” and demands the Mayor chose any one of the existing Board of Education members to remove.
Facts matter. I won’t litigate the moral or ethical arguments as to why the mayor should not be forcing people off of boards and commissions, but I will recite the facts as presented by the city’s corporation counsel:
Every person appointed to serve as a member of the BOE by the mayor must be approved by the Board of Alders, according to the provisions of the Charter (Article VII, SEC 1.4)
The mayor’s authority to remove appointees to office, whether her appointees or those of any predecessor, is govern by Article II, Sec. 15.B of the Charter.
By the terms of Article II Sec. 15.B, the mayor may seek to remove an appointee who is incompetent, unfaithful to the duties of office, or whose appointment ought be ended by reason of “…the requirement of the public service”.
In all cases, the removal is for CAUSE: the appointee has a right to be summoned by the mayor to show cause why she/he ought not to be removed. The charges in writing must be presented by the mayor to the appointee; a full hearing is required to be had, and after that, if removal is determined, a right of appeal to the Superior Court is afforded to the appointee. See Article II, 15.B.
The definitions to remove someone include conflict of interest, illegal receipt/acceptance of any valuable gift, thing, loan or promise; disclosure of confidential information concerning City affairs, ethical breaches, etc.
The removal of a mayoral appointee whose appointment has been approved by the Board of Alders, who has not been found to be incompetent, and there being no reasonable cause for removal, is specifically not allowed by the city’s constitution.
Another fact is that alders write legislation and are responsible for putting written charter changes before the voters. They had and did their best with underlining motivation to give the people small “d” democracy on the Board of Education. Bravo!
Mayor Harp as a candidate for mayor supported the concept of more voices on the Board of Education elected by the community. But often times legislative changes have unintended consequences. Mistakes in crafting legislation and law occur. Charter changes were approved in 2013 with no provision made for transition to this “hybrid” board nor did the authors of the language correctly account for the expired terms of the existing Board members, before they summarily reduced the number of seats from 8 to 7.
One might legally argue that the true error, given the limited seats available at the time of the Charter revision, was in allowing for the election process to take place for 2 positions instead of 1.
The Mayor, nor the Board of Education, have the luxury of playing the blame game. The Mayor must lead and the Board of Education members have to govern and come up with a way to move forward that is not about any individual board member’s needs but recognizes and respects the rights of all involved; current board members whose terms have not expired, newly elected board members, the voters and especially the students whom everyone is charged with assuring an adequate education and successful outcomes.
The board has put forward a resolution to allow the 2 newly ‘electeds’ to be inaugurated even though one position was not properly created. They will only move business forward with a supermajority of 5 votes thus comporting to the intent of the seven member reality in the new Charter. A 4/4 vote tables business.
Last year for better or worse, New Haven voters decided to make changes in the Charter and give people a greater voice through elected representatives on the Board of Education. We are unique with our ‘hybrid’ board but it requires a transition year.
However this matter ends up, the mayor and the Board of Education have acted in good faith and solely are seeking to advance the interests of students. I’m sure all involved look forward to the ideas, education concepts, critiques, energy and contributions of the newly elected board members. Let’s all recognize that for one year this is a transition and within this proposed framework all voices will be heard and no one voice trampled summarily.
City Youth Services Director Jason W. Bartlett is the mayor’s liaison to the Board of Education.
No Jason,
The true error was not in allowing the election for two seats to the BOE.
The true error was in Harp making an appointment in the interim that was not 'short term'.
Pretty Clear, spin it as you will......