Thirty NPS Administrators have written a letter to the Board of Education countering last week's "no confidence" letter from seven union leaders, including their own, which criticized the Central Office's leadership. (See a previous story for the text of the union leaders' letter.)
"Our union leaders in no way represent our position," write the 30 signatories who are a part of the Norwalk Association of School Administrators (NASA). "We were never consulted on the letter presented to the board or the content. In fact, our union administration has acted without our knowledge and consensus in presenting to the Board of Education correspondence implying that it is representative of the entire administrative group."
The signers of the letter, some of whose names are illegible, include Marilyn Liberatore, the former interim-Elementary School Director, Suzanne Brown Koroshetz, Principal of Brien McMahon High School, Linda Sumpter, Principal at Ponus Middle School, David Hay, Principal of Brookside Elementary, Karen Ockasi, Principal of Naramake Elementary, Frances Mahoney, Principal of Wolfpit Elementary, Ivette Ellis, Principal of Silvermine, and Myrna Tortorello, Principal of Marvin Elementary.
"I am still a big supporter of our union but I believe that the letter put forth doesn't represent all of the members," said David Hay, one of the signers, in a telephone interview. "We didn't have a voice in that letter." Mr. Hay also took issue with the scope of the union leaders' letter. "They threw paint on the wall without giving specifics," he said. "Broad brush strokes can get easily misinterpreted."
Several other signatories were contacted for their comments, however none returned phone calls.
Tony Ditrio, President of NASA, did call me back and said that he never claimed to represent the views of his union when he sent the letter. "This was not a letter on behalf of the membership," he said. "It represented the opinion of seven union leaders who deal with the Central office on a regular basis."
Mr. Ditrio, who has been employed by Norwalk Public Schools in a variety of capacities over 41 years, said that he has "earned the right to have an opinion about this. The status quo is not good enough."
Mr. Ditrio said that he was not surprised by the counter letter. "There are some people in my union that don't really know what's happening and there are some others that benefit from their relationship with the current leadership."
Mr. Dirtrio singled out former interim Elementary Director Marilyn Liberatore as one of those who has a advantageous relationship with the Central Office leadership. Mr. Ditrio claims that the counter letter was put together by Ms. Liberatore who also solicited signatures during school hours.
Ms. Liberatore retired as the principal of Columbus Elementary. She was pulled out of retirement to fill the position of Elementary School Director on an interim basis, but has continued to receive a pension. NASA filed a grievance with the BOE because Ms. Liberatore was in the position for a year and a half. NASA has also filed a grievance over the hiring of Carol Marinaccio who replaced Ms. Liberatore.
Critics have suggested that Mr. Ditrio initiated the letter to the BOE because he is upset that a candidate who he favored was not considered for the Elementary School Director position. "We were upset that one of our own was eliminated early on, but that's not what this is about," he said. Mr. Ditrio said that the grievance NASA has filed doesn't concern who was hired but the process used in the hiring decision.
Ms. Liberatore did not return a phone call asking for a comment.
NASA Letter
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This is a first! Looks like the administrators union leadership has a no confidence vote.
ReplyDeleteAre any of these signatures those of the Central Office administrators? The administrators union represents Central Office as well, right? Could someone clarify how the Union leadership sends a no confidence vote on their own members? Aren't some of the interim positions also being held by retired members of the Union? What am I not understanding?
ReplyDeleteI see the name of Roz McCarthy, the former BOE chair who hired Papallo and who is close to the AS. I see the names of some retirees who are working in interim positions, people who depend upon the good graces of the central office if they hope to continue getting hired by NPS during their retirement years. I see a few who some would argue should have been fired years ago.
ReplyDeleteAll that aside, I await the response from the NASA president.
MaryBeth Crupi is Assistant Principal at Rowayton School.
ReplyDeleteSignature cut off on bottom left corner may be that of Sara Reilly, Principal of Rowayton School.
Both come from Greenwich Public Schools (5-7 years ago?).
8:05, is that you, Mike?
ReplyDeleteAll 30 people who signed are not retired or people who 'depend on the good graces of the central office if they hope to continue getting hired by NPS during their retirement years.'
This is a bunch of very well(over)paid adults witnessing the perceived complete and total disregard for their "voices". However, you know what they say about payback. Many of the signees here have held total disregard for their own staff concerns ad nauseum. Talk about irony. All the unions are running scared, and now some of the administrators have dicovered that they're in one! Hilarious. Enjoy everyone, because the new sheriff isn't going to care how long you have been here,and may even get your name wrong. He/She is only going to be interested in results, and that is an entirely novel concept for many in this district. The state will be having a much bigger stake in the way this district goes about instruction. Many excuses were made for not signing on for "Over the Top". Plain and simple, many(not all) of these signees and those in the "conspiracy" were woefully unprepared for the rigors of educational leadership necessary to get the job done. It would have happened if we had confidence in school leadership. Don't believe the excuses. This is where the real vote of no confidence lives. Thanks Moina for letting this soap opera play out so well. Just too bad that it's a reality show!
ReplyDelete12:08 - I didn't say that all of the signatures are those of retirees (who are feeding out of the public trough again while still collecting their pensions) and who want to remain in the good graces of the central office hierarchy. However, a couple of them are. I stand by my earlier statement that some of these people might have been fired by another type of central office, but for reasons unknown to me and other taxpayers, they have not been. Why would they want to risk a new hierarchy? I suspect that some of them are hopeful that an insider (but not the NHMS principal because he is too smart) will get the superintendency. I think NHMS may be out of the running anyway.
ReplyDeleteThis is an embarrassment and I apologize for my role in it, but sometimes the ugly truth needs to be out there. I applaud the one board member who tells the public what he really sees, without regard for sacred cows. I urge other board members to do the same and not to continue protecting a system that is very troubled.
Clarification: The comment about people who might have been fired does not refer to the retirees.
ReplyDeleteI'm having trouble making sense out of two of the above comments, 12:59 and 1:48. What the heck are you two really trying to say?
ReplyDeleteI hope someone will either verify or debunk what I have read on yourct.com. One of the posters there said that the person who has been the interim director of elementary and the person recently appointed took the letter to administrators in the schools and asked them to sign it. (AGAIN, I AM ONLY SAYING WHAT IS POSTED THERE. I WASN'T APPROACHED, AND SO I CAN'T SAY IF THIS IS TRUE.)
ReplyDeleteIf it is true, it is an inappropriate act on school time, but it would be inappropriate at ANY time because the director (whether the interim or the newly appointed one) has significant power, i.e., the power of evaluation, over all elementary administrators.
Both the interim and the newly appointed person have reasons to be angry with the leadership of NASA because NASA made an issue that she had been interim director for too long. That is a fact, and it is true that 1 1/2 years as interim director is too long. The newly appointed director has reason to be miffed because NASA is grieving her appointment.
Can anyone verify?
5:06 PM, if this is true, it was so totally inappropriate that action should be taken against both persons.
ReplyDeleteThey say that central office is short staffed. I guess not so short staffed that some staff can't use company time to get a letter signed that makes them look better.
ReplyDeleteWhat percentage of the administrator's union does the 30 signatures represent?
ReplyDeleteLooks like Mr. Ditrio confirmed that at least one of the c.o. people took the letter around to be signed during working hours. Isn't it his job to protect his union members, retired or not?
What's with the signing a union presented document without first consulting the membership? It's assumed that he represents the membership. What kind of excuse is it to say he has the right to sign it as union president alone? Is that true of the teacher's union president too?
8:23PM, one (or two) central office people who have poor judgement does not mean everyone at central office should be accused of not working hard. Don't be so quick to accuse all!
On the other side of the coin, and in defense of what happened, did anyone bother to ask the two c.o. administrators if they were using their lunch time to do this?
It doesn't matter if the central office administrator(s) used her/their lunch time or not; it is still inappropriate for the superior (i.e., the person who evaluates) to ask the school administrators to sign a letter that was clearly in the interests of the person(s) circulating the letter. Also, if she/they went on her/their own lunch time, surely she/they infringed upon the work time of the school administrators who were encouraged to sign the letter. Mr. Ditrio is right in saying that Ms Liberatore has an advantageous relationship with the the central administration, and circulating the letter is likely to keep her in such favor.
ReplyDeleteAs for the new director of elementary, if she was also doing this, imagine being the principals who will be evaluated by her. How many would want to be evaluated by the person if they refused to sign? I think this puts into serious doubt the legitimacy of most of the signatures.
There has been so much dysfunction in the NPS for many years, and every time we think it has hit a new low, something else happens to prove that it has sunk yet lower.
I signed the letter. Well said, David Hay. For the record, we are NOT a divided union. We know the value of union membership and continue to support its efforts to represent us. That is why so many of us came out to attend our recent union meeting. We want to work WITH our union leadership. But we want their communication to be clear and to represent the membership's views on such critical issues that involve the public and the BOE.
ReplyDelete6:59 - Is it true that the interim director and the newly appointed director of elementary education were seeking signatures?
ReplyDeleteI don't even disagree with your signing the letter. What I do find objectionable is the report, so far unsubstantiated, except in one posting on ctreports.com, and by Mr. Ditrio on this blog, that the two women mentioned above were involved in circulating it.
RE: 7:52 --
ReplyDeleteHOW EMBARRASSING! I wrote "ctreports.com," which is the CMT website. You can tell where my mind is, with testing to begin in not so many weeks.
I meant to write "yourct.com." Maybe my posting can provide some comic relief. :)
I've looked on yourct.com and tried to find that posting. But I don't see any article that appears to be about education on there recently. Can someone tell me where to look? I'd like to see it for myself.
ReplyDeletethese comments are so unnecessary and where is the blog administrator when this is going on?
ReplyDeletecomments like the previous ones need to stop. The union leaders are not happy with the fact that folks are beginning to question. Mr. Ditrio in fact thought "he repesented the union", he signed with a coalition of 7 other union leaders, and signed NASA president.
the membership has asked for bylaws...the membership will need to receive all bylaws, and those changed, amended, deleted.
the no confidence vote needs to be in the NASA leadership.
if this blog is to be about education ...let's be about education. not this utter nonsense of looking to blame, slander, and be inappropriate.
Moina, pls. put a stop to the bashing.
why not be the focus for good public relations, since the public schools does not have a person.
This blog is not pushing education initiatives, but allowing folks to continue to say the most inappropriate comments.
Thank you Mr. Hay for your honesty, and forthrightness.
I agree. No, we are NOT a divided union. We are not, as Mr. Ditrio insults us, either '....unaware of what is going on....' or receiving favors from the current ASI.
ReplyDeleteWe are a strong group of dedicated professionals who have been for many years out alone trying our best to run our schools with no help or guidance from the Corda/Lang administration. We are group that is praying that things get better.
Whoever is making the ridiculous claim that either the outgoing interim or new DEE would or could in any manner pressure a principal or assistant principal into signing the letter has been smoking magic mushrooms. Either you do not know these women at all or you are part of the 'old boys' who are unhappy with the appointment. They are professional, supportive leaders who are always there when you need them. They take our phone calls, respond to our emails, and give us answers to our questions. That's more than we have had for a very long time.
Kudos to you, David, you are a gentlemen and a professional with the guts to sign your name.
I'm confused.Why is the interim director still working when a new director has been hired?
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to get a copy of the updated letter to Mr. Ditrio. It has now been signed by 37 of the administrators. It is also interesting to note the administrators who didn't sign. I noticed that Paul Krasnavage and Vice President Mike McGrath did NOT sign. Looks like the ole boys are sticking together.
ReplyDelete...Who believes that the original letter to the Board signed by Ditrio was not about Krasnavage not getting the position? Of course it was!
Mr. Ditrio is complaining that he was grieving the PROCESS used for hiring the Director of Elem. Ed., not that his buddy did not get the position. Why then, is he not grieving the process for the Director of Technology...same process!
ReplyDeleteMr. Ditrio, if you want to write to the board as an individual, you should not sign above the line as the President of the Administrators Union. You represent the union when you do that, plain and simple. Stop trying to make it sound like you were doing the right thing.
The person given the EED job is not qualified no matter what else is going on.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are something like 57 NASA members. If 37 of the 57 signed this letter, that is 65% of the NASA membership. Not too shabby if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteMr. Ditrio says, "We were upset that one of our own was eliminated early on." Let me get this straight--how is the new DEE who has been a dues paying NASA member for more than 5 years now NOT "one of our own"? One of our own was eliminated early on, but one of our own made it through the process and was appointed. Since when does a union file a grievance that harms another of its own members? I thought the union's role was to protect its members--all of its members from unjust treatment. Just because a person has a 41 year attachment to an organization, it does not mean that he or she can do anything he or she pleases. This includes picking and choosing who you fight the good fight for and this includes signing a letter because you feel you've earned the right to express your opinion. My president DOES have a right to express his own opinion due to his 41 years on the job with Norwalk Public Schools. The problem is that he does NOT have the right to express his own opinion using the title that my union dues pays for him to have. Since when is a union presidency a monarchy?
Here's another quick stat....if you take the other 5 union officers and the one person who is the basis for the grievance out of the tally of the union membership b/c you know they never would have considered signing the letter of rebuttal, you would be left with 51 union members of which 37 signed. That's about 73% who signed in that case. Now that speaks volumes!
ReplyDeleteHave no doubt about the legitimacy of our signatures. We all (teachers, administrators, and parents) know who the bullies are in this district. The outgoing and incoming DEE are definitely not among them.
ReplyDeleteAdd to your calculations that two of the administrators were out sick for the week, and would have signed if given the chance, the percentage of those who signed goes up even further!
ReplyDeleteThe bullies finally got caught. Now maybe every administrator will be treated equally! Hooray for the good guys!
Shouldn't this discussion be on whether the new elem ed director is qualified, she's not. the rest is just an internal fight and what does that have to do with kids?
ReplyDeleteThe internal fight is important because it was brought to the Board of Education by only one person on behalf of many. That shouldn't have happened. The one didn't really represent the many. Shouldn't the other administrators be able to state how they feel? Further, if the bullying by the administrator's union ends, that will affect kids. Don't you want your school to be treated equally and no favors given out only to the union administrators? This is very important!
ReplyDeleteWhat we need, 7:33 AM, is another blog only on the elem ed director and her qualifications. Surely the qualifications are obtainable by Moina, right? Aren't they available through the central office H.R. through freedom of information?
If the NASA president isn't one of the so called "good guys" and a "bully", why does the membership keep electing him?? If certain school administrators feel they have been constantly bullied and their schools treated unfairly because of it, doesn't this speak of a very deep systemic problem that invariably has a profound effect on the kids within those buildings? Before everybody goes off shouting hooray, perhaps a bit of reflection on just how bad things have become in the NPS.
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:33--I just love your comment asking if the topic should be about the qualifications of the new DEE. In case you are having a reading problem or perhaps a problem thinking for yourself separate and apart from the good ole NASA boys, let me remind you that the title of this issue is right at the top of the blog article. Next time try to be a little more subtle about your hidden agenda. The public isn't as clueless to your agenda as you think we are.
ReplyDeleteWell stated, 12:19 PM. My guess is that we heard from one of the two top officers of the administrators union trying to deflect an embarrassing topic. We know that one of the officers is on ALL THE TIME. Is the other here too?
ReplyDeleteThe interim director of Elementary ed is "training" the new director....
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, since the interim had no one to train her only 1 1/2 years ago. Why does (and why SHOULD) the new director need training if she has the qualifications to do the job, and how long will the taxpayers have to continue paying two people to do one job?
ReplyDeleteThis is a district that keeps crying that there is no money for programs, and yet they keep finding money to bring back their consultants. No one ever brought someone to provide me with training when I began any of the jobs I have held because the assumption was that if I was hired, I should know enough to do the job and that I would become even better over time.
Don't I recall that the current AS, certainly no stranger to the central office, had the former AS provide him with training? It almost seems an expectation that a retiree will be asked to return to work.
Board members, you should begin paying attention to the costs of these "consultants" because this is a district with misplaced priorities.
The AS didn't need training since he was already doing her job, but the former AS insisted upon it. As for the DEE, yes she needs training because she doesn't appear to have elementary experience.
ReplyDeleteCheck the facts. I hate to burst your collective bubbles, but she does have elementary experience.
ReplyDeleteShe doesn't have a hidden agenda. She does want to move our children, and the district, forward.
Anon 5:58pm--absolutely right! The few who have an issue with the appointment don't want the accountability to operate as a school system. They'd rather be a system of schools so they can continue to do what they please. They like it when the tail wags the dog.
ReplyDelete5:58 - Yours is an interesting response, one that I have seen on this blog before, but it would be useful information if there were any specificity.
ReplyDeleteJusa a few honest and direct answers to these questions may ease the doubts of reasonable people:
1. What was/were the elementary job(s) the director had, and where?
2. How long did the job(s) last?
3. Since the director is responsible for evaluating the performance of a dozen elementary principals, what experience does she have as a building principal?
Just to follow up to 11:18PM . . .
ReplyDeleteWhether there was overt pressure or not is irrelevant-- it's not good form to bring protest letters to the people you supervise (whether you are on your lunch hour or not is a silly distinction because the school administrators were all approached in their schools for pete's sake).
From what I've heard (and the bloggers can confirm this) the interim DEE sent the letter to the BOE chairman on her school department email account. Am I missing something, or is this a little askew. Mind you-- my kids went to Columbus and she was a great principal, so I don't think that she was doing anything intentionally wrong, but I just sort of think that it makes this whole issue stink.
Finally, as a parent, do I really care if one group of folks making over $160000 a year don't like another group that's making over $160000 a year. That's more than my husband and I make combined, so I really have trouble feeling sorry for any of them. If they want our attention, let's see them figure out how to lead our schools while we wait for a superintendant to be hired.
This has been a spirited discussion. I remind everyone again to keep the discussion focused on issues not personalities.
ReplyDeleteOne comment to the poster who asked why I don't fulfill a public relations role for the district: While I think it's very important to celebrate our successes, my main purpose in starting this site was to focus on issues of leadership and governance. I believe effective, visionary leadership and good governance are critical in improving our schools.
5:30 - You said, "The AS didn't need training since he was already doing her job, but the former AS insisted upon it."
ReplyDeleteIf the current AS was "already doing her (the former AS's) job," who was doing his (the current AS's) job? And if you are going to say that he was doing two full-time jobs, let me remind you that if that was the case, there needs to be more work in both jobs. Also, I would ask what your source of that information was, although I think I know who might make such a comment, and that person should be ashamed for being dishonest.
As for the claim that the former AS "insisted" upon being called back from retirement, I wonder how she would have that kind of power if she no longer held the position of AS. Should I conclude that you think all of the retirees now working in Norwalk demand that they be brought back? That is utter nonsense.
5:41 AM, if you recall, the two jobs were combined into one job. There isn't a secondary education director anymore.
ReplyDeleteAs for the people being brought back from retirement, I keep reading complaints. Doesn't anyone realize that NPS saves money with interims. There are no insurance coverage costs that are paid that way. That's about 20,000 dollars in savings right there! So stop complaining!
No one is being dishonest. You know as well as I do that a great deal of the work of AS was done by the DSE. You saw it happening. So stop your agenda of trying to discredit the DSE.
2:54 - An interim person is entitled to insurance coverage when he/she works full-time for an extended period of time; that is state law. Some of them, e.g., those who have coverage because of their careers in Norwalk, don't need the coverage, but they get paid extra for not taking it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the work of the AS that was done by the former DSE, the original statement was that the former DSE was doing the job of the former AS. After being challenged, you said that the former DSE was doing "a great deal" of the work of the former AS. Maybe your next version will be that he did "some" of her work. It is understandable for you to defend someone you believe in, but I want to keep this truthful.
2:27, it is obvious that you are 'in the know' at co. It is also obvious that by commenting on the specifics of the words I used, you are not just keeing this 'truthful.' Let's face it, you have an agenda. That agenda is that you don't like the AS because he wants accountability for your time. You don't want to be held accountable! If the new superintendent holds you accountable, will you find a way to discredit him/her too?
ReplyDelete6:36 - There is nothing in the 2:27 posting to discredit anyone, nor can I see how you find an agenda in the posting.
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I can quote someone when asked why they chose to work in Norwalk..."I'm up for the challenge!" Well...are you now? This is beyond disfunctional.
ReplyDelete7:50AM, so if you are about the 'truth,' who is it that you 'think would make the comment, and that person should be ashamed of themselves.'
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:09, who are you quoting?
ReplyDelete7:39 pm, sorry for the confusion on my quote. When the current Tech. Dir. was being interviewed about why he chose Norwalk as a place of employment, he said because he was up for the challenge...even though it didn't even answer the question in the first place. Anyway, I'd be interested to see if he thinks this is an improvement for him. Quite frankly, I think he got the job through very illgitimate means, some of which was by his design and much was by the design of the completely "set-up" hiring process. I find that the better-qualified candidate was not only overlooked but the process reaks of unethical hiring practices...the other guy didn't even have his current Superintendent get a call as a reference. I don't know if ANY references were called, and yet, he was the better candidate. Then, of course, the Dir. of Elem. Ed. hiring issue came up to amplify my sentiment. This isn't to say they are bad people who were hired...just not the best candidate...and so blatantly clear it warrants the scrutiny it is getting in this blog, and then some.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, sorry for the confusion.