Below is a video of the BOE meeting that was held Tuesday November 17, 2009. The video was taped by the Norwalk Education Foundation.
You can find NorwalkNet's story about the meeting here.
BOARD OF ED NOV 17 2009 - Movie 01 from Norwalk Education Foundation on Vimeo.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This is great. Thank you Norwalk Ed Foundation.
ReplyDeleteIs it standard procedure to ask a minister to offer a religious prayer at a Board of Education meeting? I am highly offended by the many references to God and then to Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteIn honor of Travis Simms, now on the city council, it was Rivas by a TKO over Colarossi in the late rounds of this first of many fights. And Jack C....stop coming off like some Joey Bagadonuts. You're not the chairman, Glenn is! Great theater, but what we need from this board is some leadership.
ReplyDeleteWhat is up with the prayer??????????
ReplyDeleteThe prayer was a transparent effort on the part of the board to placate the Black community, but using a Christian reference in the prayer was inappropriate. Were I not a Christian, I would have been offended. As a Christian, I was uncomfortable. Isn't is ironic that the minority reverend was insensitive to the religious minorities in Norwalk? We all need to look at our own thoughts and actions because all of us are capable of occasional lapses.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Mr. Chiaramonte's soapbox speeches, I think he was unwise. He would have been far wiser to say that he accepts the responsibility to be ever more concerned about meeting the needs of all students, including those who are underrepresented on the board. Instead, he allowed himself to become emotional, possibly setting the stage for confrontations to come. Norwalk doesn't need that. I agree with the earlier poster, who reminded him that he isn't the board chair; Glenn is.
While I wasn't entirely comfortable with some of the public comments, there was truth among them. I surely took exception to the comments from the audience during the meeting, one of whom I recognized as Rick Fuller. He should know better.
If allowing a religious prayer was the first decision of this new board, in order to placate a particular community, it was a very bad decision. Separation of church and state!
ReplyDeleteThe BOE and Mayor Moccia have blatantly violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened at the BOE meeting is analogous to the situation that led to a lawsuit against the City of Burbank, CA in 2003. Rubin v City of Burbank (124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 867)
In Burbank the City Council began their meetings with a meeting with an invocation which ended with an expression of gratitude and love "in the name of Jesus Christ."
The Court ruled that the inclusion of a "sectarian prayer" in the city council meeting violated the Constitution and enjoined the City from allowing sectarian prayers at city council meetings. The trial Court also ordered the City to "advise anyone conducting a prayer as part of the City Council meeting that sectarian prayers are not permitted."
While this California ruling is not binding in Connecticut the court's decision is highly persuasive since the Court relies on the Supreme Court ruling of Marsh v Chambers (1983) 463 US 783.
I don't think it is going to be standard operating procedure to have prayer. I think it was for the swearing in ceremony...but I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if saying a religious prayer is standard operating procedure. A violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a violation no matter how many times it happens. Will you give a killer the same excuse? 'He only meant to do it once?'
ReplyDeleteWith the current condition of the world and our schools, I think a prayer would be a welcome item. What's wrong with asking for God's help? We need it and the Board needs it!
ReplyDeleteUh, I just checked my handy dandy copy of the Constitution and the First Amendment reads as follows:
ReplyDelete"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceable to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There was no violation of the first Amendment by an establishment of religion, but forbiding a prayer could be interpreted as prohibiting the free expression thereof.
Point number 1 is that Congress was not in any way involved in the meeting. In the last three years, the Board has not opened their meetings with prayer. My sense is that it was along the same lines as the poster who said that it was for the swearing in ceremony. I do not know who issued the invitation for Rev. Mann to open the meeting. I would be very surprised if someone claimed they had instructed Rev. Mann what to say and what not to say.
As for being uncomfortable, I was very uncomfortable with the constant comments and low murmurs from the public present, a number of which were former Board members. And I was uncomfortable with Ms. Rivas's accusation that she had not been sent the document that Mr. Colarossi wished to present. Later, it turned out that she had actually received the document and had apparently had a chance to read it.
The prayer is over and done with(and not in any way comparable as someone committing murder which is a felony crime) but the hostility on the Board will continue. And that is a serious matter for prayer.
Of course expression of religion is a right in this country, but not by public officials in the school system or at school system events.
ReplyDeleteThis is a quote from the U.S. Department of Education:
'Similarly, public school officials may not themselves decide that prayer should be included in school-sponsored events. In Lee v. Weisman [ 7 ], for example, the Supreme Court held that public school officials violated the Constitution in inviting a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at a graduation ceremony. Nor may school officials grant religious speakers preferential access to public audiences, or otherwise select public speakers on a basis that favors religious speech. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe [ 8 ], for example, the Court invalidated a school's football game speaker policy on the ground that it was designed by school officials to result in pregame prayer, thus favoring religious expression over secular expression.'
Our newly elected Board members may have jeopordized grant funding for Norwalk. If so, this is an egregious offense.
Boys,(Jack and Glenn) wear a tie. You look like you just left the bar at some social club. Yes, you only have one chance to make a first impression. Practice makes perfect, we hope. But, then again, most of this could have taken place at some local bar. Giving Field Marshall Moore 5k worth of copy paper won't change a thing at WR, other than the recycling bin being more productive. Nice try, Steve-O. As for praying--just like voting in old Chicago--early and often!
ReplyDeleteAs a previous post explained - No laws were violated. The liberal tax and spenders had their chance and failed. Look at the mess they created. Our school system is falling apart and their is no accountability by any administrators. Our most needy children in special education have been victims of an incompetant central office staff. Time to clean up all the waste at Cental Office and start holding them accountable.
ReplyDeleteNov. 23, 2009 at 5:45 PM: One of the most incomprehensible comments ever posted in all of blogdom appears here. Congrats, Anon!
ReplyDeleteSure, blaming the newbies for the contents of an opening prayer probalby sounded like a good idea, but at what part of the meeting did the newbies vote on the prayer and direct what was supposed to be said?
In her acceptance speech for inane comment of the year maybe Anon 5:45 can explain why it's ok for some ministers to use their houses of worship for political rallies without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, but a heart-felt prayer from a private citizen is somehow wrong.
That may well have been a heart-felt prayer from a private citizen, but the reference to Christianity has no place at a public forum. People of the Jewish, Hindu and other faiths -- or no faith at all -- also support the NPS.
ReplyDeleteIf you think this isn't a problem, then let's let the atheists say a few words after the election. Then we'll give the Wiccans a moment of prayer, etc.
After offering the prayer at the BoE, the Invocator left and gave a prayer at the Common Council meeting. There were TWO prayers at the Mayor's swearing-in ceremony: one from a Rabbi and the other from Rev. Lindsay Curtis. So prayers were the order of the entire day. Personally I was happy about them - we need all the help we can get.
ReplyDeleteNorwalk Parents who posted at 1:41 AM
ReplyDeleteA quote from the United States Department of Education that prohibits religious prayer is a part of an 'inane' response? Or is it that the REVERAND, NOT JUST A PRIVATE CITIZEN, was invited by no one? Perhaps she invited herself? Do you happen to know how she 'appeared' if not by invitation?
Finally, because redundancy appears to be necessary to make this point; NO, it is not all right to have religious prayer in that setting. It is illegal and it really does offend others.
to Anon 5:45 p.m.
ReplyDelete"Our newly elected Board Members may have jepardized grant funding for Norwalk. If so, this is an egregarious offense."
Okay, we've all gotten the message that you are offended. Tell me, are you so offended that you are going to file suit and jepardize NPS grants over this? Seems to me that you are the one that is protesting loudly. Most of the rest of us have moved on. But, you can go ahead and file suit if you wish, which will cause grievous harm to the Norwalk students because the court costs and fines will be astronomical. West Rocks won't be able to afford paper, or lights, and neither will anyone else. Guess it's worth that to you, huh?
3:53, the blame should be placed on the person who invited the Reverand, not the person who is offended. Your anger is misplaced and will only keep offending those who are already not too happy.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the sectarian prayer that the reverend offered, but I assure everyone that this will not jeopardize grant funding for Norwalk because there is no such condition in the guidelines for grants.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the 3:34 AM poster.
ReplyDeleteYou need to reread the application for federal grants' page:
'SECTION 1A: STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES
Connecticut State Department of Education
Standard Statement of Assurances
Grant Programs
9:08 p.m. -
ReplyDeleteI'm not angry, it didn't bother me at all, you're the one that keeps claiming to be offended and that the District will lose its funding.
So, go ahead, pull the plug. See what it gets you -- and all the property owners in Norwalk, all the NPS students in Norwalk and all the District employees. You're in a great position to hurt everyone, especially in these difficult economic times.
Have fun.
I read it. It would require a ridiculously convoluted (mis)interpretation of the law to say that having a sectarian reference in a prayer at the beginning of a single board of education meeting would render the district ineligible for either federal or state grant funds.
ReplyDeleteI stand by the statement that quotes the United States Department of Education and the assurances that appear in all federal grants that require adherence to federal and state law.
ReplyDeleteFurther, a single prayer would only result in a slap on the wrist. If it were to continue, then further action might be taken.
Therefore, poster who thinks everyone in Norwalk will be eating only bread and water for the next year, calm down. A complaint, if sent to the State or the Federal government would not be as serious as you would like to believe.
Okay, so stop threatening and file.
ReplyDelete