A version of this story appeared on The Daily Norwalk
An attempt by Board member Steve Colarossi to have the Board of Education discuss the performance of some of its administrators was rebuffed at last night's school board meeting. Colarossi had placed on the agenda the "Discussion of the performance of Fay Ruotolo, Tony Dadonna, Suzanne Koroshetz, Alaine Lane, and Bruce Morris in response to learning of the recent arrests of people associated with the Norwalk School District."
In the past two weeks, an art teacher at Brien McMahon High School and a substitute teacher at Briggs High School were arrested, separately and charged with child abuse related crimes. Ruotolo is Norwalk's human resources administrator, Dadonna is the assistant superintendent, Koroshetz and Lane are principals at the affected schools, and Morris is the district's human relations officer.
"There are a lot of legal issues here," said Mayor Richard Moccia who sits on the board as an ex officio member. He tried to dissuade discussion of the topic. "We have to proceed very carefully. We're on dangerous ground when we're dealing with peoples' rights." Moccia questioned whether the administrators had been given official notice and whether they had a right to legal representation if the meeting went into executive session.
Colarossi responded that the board's attorney had been consulted before putting the matter onto the agenda.
"These are all very good people," said Colarossi, "but we have to make sure that the policies are being followed. That's why I wanted to have this agenda item discussed in executive seesion." Colarossi said he learned in April about the complaints against Dina McNelis, the substitute teacher who was arrested last week.
Other board members, however, were reluctant to have a discussion at all because the investigations into each alleged incident are on-going.
Interim Superintendent Michael Nast said that he didn't understand the purpose of having a discussion about the staff's performance. "We have an excellent staff who did their jobs well," said Nast. "I don't think the discussion should go beyond that. Nast said he hasn't receieved any e-mails from the community expressing concern about the arrest.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hopefully Nast will be receiving a few emails today from parents who believe this matter should be investigated further. Perhaps he didn't receive any feedback because we all thought they were doing their job by investigating the situations. What were the policies and procedures that were in place when this potentially harmful substitute was rehired? Seems it's easier to get a substitute job in Norwalk than it is to be a parent volunteer on a field trip in Norwalk... What's wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteDid this 'potentially harmful' substitute do anything that suggested that she was about to harm children? Exactly what was that, 2:20 pm? Are you jumping to a conclusion or do you really know what happened regarding the substitute? Perhaps all of the policies were followed. Perhaps this person has no record of harming anyone? Are you a fortune teller? It seems you want the administrators to be one!
ReplyDeleteI understand your concern for safety. I agree. It's just that no one, repeat...NO ONE...can predict behaviors of people who do not have a criminal record. Unless, of course, you can....
Colarossi is way out of line. Moccia is legally correct. Seems that there is a loose cannon on the Board.
ReplyDeleteSo was there no discussion of the budget at last night's meeting? What is happening there??? That seems to be a more pressing issue.
ReplyDeleteNo new news on the budget. Central Office is still investigating. Nast said he will present possible cut before the next BOE meeting. He plans to have a parent/community meeting beforehand. I'm not exactly sure of the date yet.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, 5:54, the police arrested the substitute. Normally they don't arrest people for being kind to children.
ReplyDeleteTo a parent, that's putting children in harm's way. I surely don't want either of my children in a classroom with that substitute. Perhaps she's finally off the SubFinder database??
If you have nothing to hide, then stand up and explain your policies and procedures and how they were followed. It's really simple.
ReplyDeleteSo exactly what is the BOE and Supt. Nast doing about safeguarding our children????? PLEASE TELL US! Are you reviewing your policies? Are you questioning all the personnel involved? For the amount of money we taxpayers are paying for our school admins we expect much more than this!
ReplyDeleteThank you Mr. Colarossi for being the only one with the guts to stand up for our children!
People need to keep emailing Nast, Moccia and BOE Members to let them know the parents want to know the procedures in place to protect our children from further "coincidences". (like 2 arrests, 1 suspension and a special ed fraud).
ReplyDeleteAny one try to find Dani Capalbo's article about the Board punting on this issue on The Hour website? You can't-- there's no mention of it. It won't even turn up in a search on The Hour site.
ReplyDeleteAll the more reason why we need to rally to get the Board of Education to figure out what really happened and how a sub with bad references gets re-assigned and why a teacher accused of an affair with a student wasn't put on leave ASAP.
Email the board at BOARD@NORWALKPS.ORG
4:42, all I am saying is that no one knew that this person was going to behave that way in advance. If there was a criminal background check, and I'm sure there was, how could the administrators know that there was a potential serious problem? They would have to have a crystal ball!
ReplyDeleteThis is not being taken as seriously as it should be because Nast is not getting emails? Here's his email - Nast@norwalkps.org
ReplyDeleteNO ONE NEEDS A CRYSTAL BALL TO RESPOND IN REAL TIME TO INFORMATION.
ReplyDeleteHow do you assign a sub to a school after she's received terrible reviews for odd behavior?
How do you not IMMEDIATELY put a teacher on leave when the principal reports to human resources allegations of a sexual affair with a student?
Don't you people get it-- this is all about INACTION-- pure and simple. It's about administrators who are so far removed from what happens in a school that they don't act quick enough to help our kids.
I'm sure they're caring, nice people (even Colarossi said that). Its their slow responses that are inexcusable.
Ignoring the abuse situation and not questioning staff is akin to the Catholic church shuffling abusive priests from parish to parish.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why it's such a big deal for the board to question administrators. Members of the executive branch go in front of Congress all the time and get tongue-lashed in public. Colarossi was proposing and executive session.
There is an administrators-first culture in this district that needs to change to a children's first culture.
Colarossi seems to get that why don't the other BOE members?
I too looked for Dani's article today and amazingly it has disappeared. It is scary to think that we are now censoring our newspapers to suit the administration's needs.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about the legality of the situation that people don't get? How would you like it if you were accused of sexual harassment in your workplace and were let go because of the accusation. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?'
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who don't get it, the administrators could lawyer up and sue the Board for what Colarassi wanted to have happen.
If you are so concerned about budgets, how about million dollar law suits?????????
Nast has what 4 weeks left? He has had it and is in over his head and is just stalling to get out that door without litigation involving him. Thank you Steve for standing tall. Welcome to the "tear down the brick wall club".
ReplyDelete1:01 Your day is coming, rest assured. Better pad that 401. Your gonna need it. Go ahead file a complaint, see what happens. You dont belong in our schools system and we will remove you. Take that to the bank and deposit that!
ReplyDeleteI am 1:01. All I can think of is 1:18, are you really serious? This is more than I can tolerate. I am asking you nicely to cease and desist with your threats. I am not who you think I am.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think you are the dangerous one. Get help!
Kudos and a big thank you to the last board.........see what happens when you cut positions. Things fall through the cracks, things dont get done, and although you thought buy cutting CO jobs you weren't effecting children, guess what?? YOU DID!!! It is horrible what is happening to the children of Norwalk but it is not one persons fault!
ReplyDelete9:15 has a valid point How is it that NPS does not seem to screen its substitutes well? Over the past five years, there have been some doozies who are not able to handle the classroom once they are in it. There is so much potential risk when you take an unknown and place him/her as an authority figure over 20+ kids. This is not just referring to child abuse cases, but simple negative behaviors we take for granted that we, in no way, should. This may include teaching inappropriate content, teaching content incorrectly, displaying bad temper, potential for bullying, etc. On the other hand, there are excellent subs out there who NPS needs to encourage. Could it be a lack of support for subs and/or problematic building climate in some schools that makes good subs take jobs in other districts over NPS?
ReplyDeleteNorwalk does require that substitutes have fingerprints and a criminal record review is done by the police department.
ReplyDeleteTo say this happened because CO postions were cut by the last Board is crazy. There are more than enough people there who should and could be doing their jobs but aren't. They are collecting big, fat checks for doing nothing. This is just what they need to use as an excuse for not cutting any more. We need to cut some positions and then replace some others.
ReplyDelete12:12 - It is true that Norwalk requires fingerprints and a criminal record check, but it isn't because of district policy; rather, it is because state law requires it.
ReplyDeleteListen, we have more then substitutes that need to be screened better. There are aides who are incapable of doing their jobs (barely can read), Vice Principals in the Elementray Schools with DUI's, teachers who verbally abuse students and have been caught on parents cell phones, other staff members on probation and everyone downtown ignores these things, and especially the Principals. This district is ridiculous!!!
ReplyDeleteFay needs to be fired. She is responsible for the district's personnel matters. She failed. The CO game needs to stop. The new superintendent needs to make all CO staff reapply for their jobs. Get rid of years of CO people who do nothing but collect big fat pay checks. What does Fay make. I hear it is over 200,000. Stop the games. Time to clean house. Didn't Fay also hire the autism specialist with phony credentials. When will this stop? Steve is right. Show Fay the door. And let her bring her failed CO staff with her.
ReplyDeleteSo, everything I'm reading here and on YourCt.com is screamning that the HR department doesn't work well and that investigation is needed (even Nast basically said that by starting his investigation after saying that everything was okee-dokee).
ReplyDeleteGuess the big guy was right all along.
Is an apology to Colarossi going to be on the next BOE meeting agenda?
Should be...What needs to happen is that at the next meeting parents and teachers need to come out and demand answers and change. Other districts have parents out in full force. I went to a meeting with a few teachers from my school and was extrememly dissappointed in the turn out of parents as well as teachers. Rise up people of Norwalk and take back the future of your children!!! You can't trust the peopel in charge downtown anymore. Speak up!!!!
ReplyDeleteAn apology to Colarossi? Are you kidding???? He is looking for lawsuits against the BOE everywhere he turns!
ReplyDelete5:35 AM- Can you explain your post?
ReplyDeleteColarossi asked at a Finance Cmt for data on pending lawsuits because there wasn't a reference to that risk in the budget.
He's been trying to cut down on legal fees to force the special ed dept. to get into lawsuits with parents less and be more cooperative.
Maybe you're one of those people who thinks that exposing problems is bad. You know, the kind that thinks that giving people information might make them sue. But, if we don't figure out what's wrong, we can't fix it. Right?
6:10, it's the way he is going about exposing problems...Even the mayor had to put a stop to his antics. He needs to follow policy himself. The proper way of handling the administrators in question is to allow the superintendent to investigate the problems. It is not up to the Board to publicly go after administrators with the intent to fire them. Colarassi needs to stop grandstanding!
ReplyDelete1:08 I have no idea where that came from. Let's not embellish the story.
ReplyDeleteI know a lot about school administrators and quite a bit about school law, and no one ever said anything about firing the people in question. However, even if that were the case, there is a very long and difficult process that must begin. Further, unless there is documentation of poor performance over time, none of the administrators in question did anything that could legally result in termination.
So that the focus of this thread can remain on whether there needs to be an investigation into school district HR policies and less on one member’s “tactics”, I think it best to share with NorwalkNet the chronology that lead to my requesting that the BOE go into executive session on May 18, 2010.
ReplyDeleteIn early April, I had asked Supt. Nast and BOE Chairman Iannaccone to share with the entire Board of Education information regarding how our Human Resources Department had assigned a substitute teacher to Briggs after complaints had been received from other Norwalk schools where that substitute teacher had worked. I followed-up with several telephone conversations, emails and personal conversations, particularly in light of the arrest of one our teachers as news accounts suggested that HR had not timely placed the teacher on administrative leave when allegations were first reported.
When I received no response, I wrote to Supt. Nast and the BOE Chairperson on April 30th asking for an agenda item that would have the BOE go into Executive Session for a private review of our administrative handling of these matters.
When I did not receive a response to that communication, I then wrote again on May 11th. Finally, on May 14th, I received a telephone call from the Human Resources Director advising me that I would need to speak with the school department’s attorney (William Connon) so that the request for information to be presented in Executive Session complied with state law.
Later that morning I spoke with Atty. William Connon who told me that, because we would be reviewing the reports which the principals of Briggs and Brien McMahon had provided, and any reports which the Human Relations Director provided, that those parties would need to be notified of the planned Executive Session. I reiterated that there was nothing to suggest that Principal Lane, Principal Koroshetz or Rev. Morris had not performed admirably under the circumstances and that the nature of the inquiry was to determine if the central office, once it received these reports, responded in a fashion that complied within the spirit and letter of our policies and to assess if we had the technical and staffing capabilities to perform these duties. Counsel insisted that any administrator who had any supervisory role in the matter or who submitted any report should be included in the executive session review, particularly as we did not want to single-out any one administrator.
I wrote to Supt. Nast, HR Director Ruotolo and the BOE Chairperson soon after my phone call with Atty. Connon and suggested the following for the Executive Session request: Review of response to matters relating to the arrests of John Tate and Dina McNelis : Executive Session anticipated pursuant to C.G.S Section 1-200(6)(a) and Section 1-210(b)(11).
Later that same day (May 14th), the BOE Chairperson and Asst. Supt. Daddonna telephoned me and said that they would conference Atty. Connon into the call for the purpose of writing the proposal to review our handling of both matters. Atty. Connon repeated his analysis of why all parties (even those who had been extremely diligent in their duties) should be listed in the Executive Session request. I trusted that legal advice and did not believe that any negative inference would be cast upon any parties, particularly after I had already offered by email two alternative wordings to the Executive Session request (in my email of April 30 and in my email of May 14).
By that time, having received no information that any internal examination was taking place, and assured that legal counsel was providing the best possible advice, I believed that the need to examine how we (as a school district) handled these situations was so great as to justify moving forward with my request to ask my fellow BOE members to go into Executive Session to conduct this review. No one should infer any negative implication by a request for a review—for we can learn as much by reviewing good actions, as we can be reviewing the reasons for inaction.
Steve, your explanation needs to be made more public. Not many parents will read your comment here. This topic is already too far down on the topics listed.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that people on this forum and on YourCT.com believe that you should hand walking papers to a number of administrators. Parents are very angry and are placing blame on anyone who was mentioned negatively in the newspaper or online. It's not fair to the administrators who followed policy.
I don't know who is to blame for what happened, meaning the extremely negative turn this took in the 'headlines', etc., but it should be corrected immediately.
I think it would be helpful if you stepped up to the plate and corrected the misconceptions.
Thank you.
The problem with these sites is that people like 6:02 don't get it, but still want to make demands.
ReplyDeleteIf parents get p-o'ed about poor decisions (such as hiring subs who have negative reports), then parents have a right to demand answers. If parents are worried that HR may have sat on reports for days about a teacher before placing him on PAID LEAVE, then they have a right to demand answers.
If administrators don't want to give answers, then they suffer the consequences.
I don't need any ELECTED OFFICIAL (no offense Steve) to tell me whether school department employees are hiding information or engaged in a coverup-- I can see with my own eyes that they are.
Norwalk is indeed fortunate to have a board member like Steve Colarossi. Thanks for your clear thinking and for your openness, Mr. Colarossi.
ReplyDeleteI hope that the person who made unfounded accusations of the violation of certain administrators' rights apologizes for his/her statements.
9:28 and 3:42, it's you who don't get it. I understand that. The media, including this column have created such a negative view of what happened that the truth is almost impossible to uncover at this time. 'Administrators on the Hot Seat' doesn't exactly instill confidence that maybe the right thing was done. It sets a tone, just as the Norwalk Hour did.
ReplyDeletePut yourself in these administrators' shoes for just one moment. What if policy was followed but, because of the ongoing investigation, you are not allowed to comment. Day after day you read nasty comments with a 'mob' ready to take your livelihood away from you. Be truthful. You would probably have sleepless nights, anxiety attacks, whatever....There is no due process here. The mentality is 'they (the administrators) suffer the consequences,' or worse.
The person who 'made unfounded accusations' does not owe anyone an apology. That person was correct. The manner in which this whole matter was instigated and carried out was wrong. The newspaper and blogs latched onto the little facts known and created a 'hate campaign.' An elected official needs to be aware of the consequences of his/her actions. If anything, an apology is owed to the administrators.
To clarify my own interest in this matter, I am not one of the administrators or one of the BOE members. I am an objective observer of what has happened in this entire country from the highest levels.
I believe the truth will come out regarding this substitute. Whether this person is innocent or guilty, whether the administrators are innocent or guilty of a cover-up, the verdict has been decided by this public...If there is innocence proven by any of the parties, I hope the people here on this blog will apologize! I won't hold my breath.
I'm just another ANONYMOUS parent-poster here, so my opinion might not count for much, but here goes.
ReplyDeleteYou can't blame Colarossi for wanting answers about problems that worried a lot of us. I don't think he'd lie about emails he sent to the superintendent (too easy to prove otherwise)- so I figure that they ignored the guy.
If the school department's lawyer writes the motion and submits it, blame him for how it's worded. If, the newspapers and blogs write about it, then that's what happens in a democracy. Get over it. Information is supposed to flow freely so that people can make their own opinions.
Maybe if Nast and Rutolo had told us what really happened first, then there would have been no motion. So, heck, let's blame them if adminstrators had their feelings hurt.
8:11, sorry, but you missed the point.
ReplyDelete...and, FYI, maybe the administrators are not allowed to talk about what happened until the case has been fully investigated. That's a legal matter.
8:11 didn't miss the point at all. He/She is spot on the point!
ReplyDelete