Norwalk's top school officials are guaranteed their jobs and pay raises. Tony Daddona, Assistant Superintendent, and Fay Ruotolo, Director of Human Resources, received new contracts last night after almost two hours of closed door deliberations by the Board of Education. The Board extended Daddona's current contract for one year to 2013 with a salary of $187,464. They extended Ruotolo' s contract, which was scheduled to expire June 30, for one year and gave her an annual salary of $145,266. Board members amended the motion to approve Ruotolo’s contract to include a written evaluation by the incoming superintendent Susan Marks in six months time.
The school board voted six to two to approve Ruotolo’s contract with Sue Haynie and Erin Halsey voting against. They approved Dadonna’s contract seven to one with Sue Haynie opposing. “I believe the process was atypical and flawed,” said Haynie of both contracts. “I also object to the 3.5 percent raise. Norwalk and NPS can't afford it. The raise does as much damage for the message that it sends than the actual cost.” The administrators' pay raises raises will be in the form of furlough days.
Board Chairman Glenn Iannaccone made it clear that incoming Superintendent Susan Marks had reviewed both contracts. “Dr. Marks wants a staff in place when she gets here,” said Iannaccone. This was interim Superintendent Michael Nast's last Norwalk BOE meeting. Dr. Marks will start work on July 1.
Board member Steve Colarossi, who was absent because of a previously scheduled family vacation, has been outspoken about his opposition to Ruotolo’s contract. Prior to the meeting, Colarossi had sent e-mails to the board and the mayor opposing Ruotolo’s contract because her performance had not been formally evaluated despite such a provision in her current contract.
During public comments, Norwalk Federation of Teachers President Bruce Mellion said, "It is totally unacceptable that there is no evaluation plan for the administrators." Teachers in the district have a very rigourous evaluation procedure, said Mellion.
Iannaccone said he expects the current evaluation process to change after Marks arrives. "I expect Dr. Marks to revamp the evaluations." Iannaccone said after the meeting.
Colarossi also objected to fringe benefits within Ruotolo’s contract that he said added to her base salary. Her income would exceed the amount in the recently passed budget and could violate the city's charter. After the meeting, Iannaconne said the board had consulted with officals at the State Department of Education to confirm that her contract was not violating any laws.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
We need to hold the BOE members individually accountable for this vote. Why are these executives getting a raise in these times and simultaneously asking the teachers for concessions. I understand that they will be taking furlough days but that's not the point. They should be taking no raise at all.
ReplyDeleteThe BOE members also need to be held accountable for the lack of evaluations. This didn't just pop up this year. It seems it has been a long term policy not to do evaluations. Such things reek of incompetence.
pathetic is all i can think of. how can they give a raise to someone and approve a contract for poor leadership. would like to see his cell phone bill. direct dial to all buddies on boe. manages and bullies people. makes absolutely no decisions, and show no leadership.
ReplyDeleteif he was so great why didn't that same boe appoint him the interim, or even the supt.
all of a sudden he is wonderful.
how about that nasa pres? three mos ago he wrote him and all top central office folks as incompetent and vote of no confidence, and now he writes praise of the asst. super--whom he despises.
what's that all about folks?
wake up boe ask the real questions,
what good is an eval? who will do it? who will write it? it will be another ghost writer like the ones that write now.
yes 8:53 it is incompetence...
you are right. at least the NFT prez spoke up...
why should a person be given a 3 yr contract and saddle the poor new super with that problem...more sweeping under the carpet.
are we setting her up or what???????
susan,
ReplyDeleteif you are reading blogs...
head for the hills...this place is full of issues, bullies, and total incompetence.
now you are stuck with even more!
12:45, Susan Marks was kept in the know about these contracts. Apparently even she disagrees with you.
ReplyDeleteStop your bullying. It has not been productive for you, has it? As for your knowledge of what is going on at central office, it is obvious who you are. Start putting in your 8 hr. days now and stop continuing to write on this blog during your working hours!
I hope Susan Marks has your number and is ready to take you on.
I hope Susan Marks takes everyone on - one by one. Re-evaluating all the Administrators who were hired by Corda and kept employed by Papalo and Nast. The beneficiaries of this will be our kids who will have competent people who care about the background of our substitutes and the education of our children. Not just covering their behinds when it all hits the fan. Message to all of you on the 3rd floor - shape up, or it will soon catch up with you...
ReplyDeleteThis is appalling. Rutolo needs to go! Listen to the story on NPR about Lorre - Marks are you listening? Taxpayers - people trying to sell your home...having a story on our crappy school system on NPR is not doing anything for your home values or bringing new families into our town. OPEN YOUR EYES AND EARS IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE. TIME TO FINALLY GET THINGS RIGHT.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wshu.org/news/story.php?ID=7941
News flash to Jody Bishop Pullan, Midaglia Rivas, Jack Chiaramonte, Glenn Iannaccone and Susan Hamilton: IN NOVEMBER WE TOLD YOU HOW SICK AND TIRED WE WERE OF POLITICS AS USUAL AND KICKED YOUR FRIENDS OUT OF OFFICE.
ReplyDeleteObviously none of you heard us. It's ok- we'll shout a lot louder in November 2011.
That's absolutely right. These politicians have not heard the message. And I would also addd to the list Heidi Keyes.
ReplyDeleteParents need to work hard to vote out these polticians who care about perpetuating the status quo and turning a generation of Norwalks students into dummies.
I think Heidi Keyes is doing a pretty fair job. Pretty low key on the politics and mindful of what the public thinks. Giver her some more time before lumping her in with the others who deserve to go.
ReplyDeletethe november election will be based on district. Find out about your district and start now with getting people to run. If you really want those folks out - you must start the process.
ReplyDeleteAs I saw the issue with the H R Director contract, if the budget approves one base salary, then in order to award a contract with a higher base salary, you would need to modify the budget. That wasn't done.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, if you are going to reward someone with cash payments (which are to be paid to her for not taking insurance), then you have to account for those payments in her salary account (the IRS sees those payments that way). Once again, if you want to give the HR Director a cash bonus, include it in the budget. Let it be debated while we are also debating whether to cut individual supply accounts for students.
So too with the travel allowance that doesn't have to be accounted for-- if that was to be a consideration, we should have debated if that $1500 was needed more by the HR Director or by the schools (which all took reductions in their per pupil allocations).
Reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not the HR Director earned a one-year renewal with a raise and a bonus. However, I don't think anyone can disagree that there should have been an evaluation of the Director and a meaningful opportunity for the Board of Education to review that evaluation before a contract was sent to the Negotiation Committee for their review. Also, this process should have been undertaken before the budget was passed.
Although I respect that my colleagues felt that Dr. Marks' desire to retain the HR Director should be accorded due deference, I believe that the needs of our taxpayers and students deserved greater deference which should have inspired a less-rushed and more deliberative process.
A few problems, as I see it, with giving raises to cabinet level staff, whoever they may be, in the deepest Recession since the Great Depression.
ReplyDelete• Norwalk Public Schools can’t afford it. It takes money away from OUR KIDS.
• The City of Norwalk can’t afford it. The BOE Budget will be tight again this year. City money must be frugally, thoughtfully and strategically spent or it takes money away from OUR KIDS.
• It’s very difficult to ask for givebacks or concessions from unions or other employees if the top brass isn’t doing so. It ties our hands, limiting our negotiating ability and it takes money away from OUR KIDS.
• Furlough days that are followed by a raise and come on the back of prior year furlough days do not cut costs, they only carry the costs over to the next year; it’s borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Some staff will have, including vacation, sick, personal, legal holidays and 7.5 furlough days, Contract terms allowing for 63.5 paid days a year away from the job-- about 13 weeks. Who gets hurt? OUR KIDS.
• Many Norwalkers have lost their jobs, few have gotten raises, including most of the City of Norwalk staff, and many have lost their houses, their insurance and/or their savings. Giving raises to highly paid BOE staff in this environment sends a poor message, aggravating the heck out of the taxpaying public who hold the purse strings and, of course, potentially taking money away from OUR KIDS.
• We spent 3 months working on the Budget, cutting nickels and dimes, taking funding from sports programs, high school class offerings, hearing aide equipment for special ed kids, ELL materials, school allotments, school library funding—the list goes on, we cut something from practically EVERY line item. We had to take money away from OUR KIDS.
We need to quit putting the desires of adults above the needs of our children.
Dear BOE members, I agree 100% with your statements. I am both appalled and shocked that Ruotolo's contract was renewed with a bonus. As a taxpayer I find this totally unacceptable. The Superintendent reports to you, our elected officials. Our elected officials represent the taxpayers of Norwalk. We were not represented. I implore you to ensure that Ms. Ruotolo will be held accountable for the damage she has caused to our children. There may not be an official evaluation in place but her mismanagement and poor job performance is well documented. Ms. Ruotolo has no respect from the taxpayers, teachers, principals, and some BOE members. She needs to be held accountable for a job she is incapable of doing. Ms. Ruotolo is paid handsomely for responsibilities she is not able to deliver. Unacceptable. Thank you to the BOE members who support the will of the people. I hope you will both continue to raise your concerns with Dr. Marks. Please hold Ms. Ruotolo accountable to the taxpayers of Norwalk. We pay her salary and we find her performance and outrageous salary unacceptable. Thank you.
ReplyDelete12:45, What a faithful secretary...
ReplyDeleteIf 12:45 is a faithful secretary, the poster is in dire need of some refreshers on punctuation, capitalization and sentence structure, 3:31. So, either 12:45 is very disingenuous or not who you think it is.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the reference to "faithful secretary."
ReplyDeleteWell, let's think a moment, people. If the guess is that 12:45 is the AS's secretary, my thought would be, who else would know who the AS is on the phone with? I don't think he stands in the middle of central office making calls to BOE members!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the comment is accurate...Who else would know that?
I want to see the written evaluation by Dr Marks in 6 months. Hey Tony and Fay.. pony up and give back some of your undeserved salaries. You should feel like crap for taking money for a job NOT WELL DONE.
ReplyDeleteLet's stop the silly swiping and focus on the harm that Ruotolo has done to OUR SCHOOLS.
ReplyDeleteShe hired a sub, who was later arrested, and put her in classrooms before checking her criminal record.
That alone should have gotten her fired- instead, Nast praises her, Bruce Morris writes a "report" that says she's "Okee-dokee" and the taxpayers get fleeced when she gets a raise.
Great job by Marks- getting in the middle of this without all the facts. Does she just listen to the oldtimers on the BOE or will she dare to get real facts from the people with guts that we just elected?
That's right, let's focus on attacking the central office....
ReplyDeleteAnd here I thought everything possible that was negative had already been said...and repeated, probably by the same people.
Hey, maybe these people are even the central office people attacking each other!!! What a concept. The 'outside' taxpayers don't even have to bother writing in. Let central office attack itself!
Search the office computers...I'll bet the administrators and the secretaries are busy at work on these blogs!
Thank you Sue and Steve for your intelligent comments and actions. I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to explain your decisions to the community.
ReplyDeleteGreat letter in the The Hour, Sue. You both have my support.
It isn't the secretary. There are other people who work around him who often sit in places where they can hear everything.
ReplyDeleteHere is what is so confusing to me- your basic full-time working, taxpaying, sort-of-involved-in-my-kids'-PTO typical parent: How does the BOE give anyone a raise and bonuses a couple of weeks after cutting the money that's used for books and school supplies for the kids?
ReplyDeleteWhy do we only hear from 2 Board of Ed members on this blog? Don't the others respect us enough to explain their votes?
12:42 p.m. -
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, both the AS and the HR positions, although not union positions, mirror all adminstrative union raises (I don't know the name of the union, sorry.) If that particular union gets a 2% COLA, then the AS and HR positions also get the COLA adjustment regardless of who is occupying those two job positions or what their current job performance rating is.
I don't particularly like the arrangement, since I believe in merit pay, but I am also not an NPS employee, and my only say in the matter will be when my district BOE members are up for election.
Sounds like the newest members of the BOE, Erin, Sue & Steve are the only ones who are gutsy enough to question these contracts. Shame on the rest of the BOE. To Bishop-Pullan, Rivas, Chiaramonte, Iannaccone & Hamilton, we'll look forward to voting in fresh people who won't automatically rubber stamp contracts such as these without a word.
ReplyDelete6:29, didn't you read the 3:13 post? The AS and HR position raises are the same percentage increase as the administrators' union gets. What do you not get about that???????
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why the new members of the BOE didn't know how the percentages are calculated for these two people. As for evaluations, the AS did have evaluations in his folder. Let's get the facts straight before condemning everyone!
10:45 - I'd be very, very surprised to find out that new BOE members did not know how the percentages were calculated. However, I think there were also other factors in play during the meeting.
ReplyDeleteOne was that Dr. Marks had reviewed the contracts and had requested that they be approved. I don't know that I agree with that or disagree with it. I simply think that the Board is going to have to work with the new Superintendent (at least until November), and it's gonna be a financial uphill battle, so they'd best be all rowing together. Remember that the collateral damages in these types of fire fights tend to be the students and the classroom teachers.
The other issue is that knowing that the contract would be approved, Ms. Haynie, Ms. Halsey and indirectly, Mr. Colarossi had the opportunity to take a stand against the situation, send a strong message and point out that people will be watching.
I do not believe that this was the type of grandstanding that Ms. Rivas does when she skips every Finance Board meeting and then claims that the final spreadsheet with the account numbers and reductions is not clear to the community after it's been discussed ad nauseum in committee. The opposition votes cast by Ms. Haynie and Ms. Halsey stated clearly and succinctly "This is not a Free Pass." Having the contract amended to include an evaluation after six months was a major move by the Board to say, "Listen up, girlfriend, mind your p's & q's."
Unfortunately, I personally agree with Ms. Haynie that the increase adjustments said "Proceed to Baltic Avenue, and collect $200 as you pass Go!" particularly in Ms. Ruotolo's case.
However, there is a new day dawning as of tomorrow and I truly wish Dr. Marks the best. She's got her work cut out for her and I think she's going to have walk a careful line because people are up in arms about the renewal of Ms. Ruotolo's contract. In the meantime, she also has to deal with all the other routine issues that crop up in Central Office.
10:45 raises a red herring in claiming that the HR Director was contractually entitled to a raise to mirror that provided in the administrators' contract. That statement is unfounded for a few reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe HR Director's contract was expiring on July 1, so it was entirely new contract (not an extension or amendment of a pre-existing agreement) that was negotiated.
The base pay in the contract was higher than the base pay established by the budget. Between the time the budget was passed and the contract was approved, the HR Director received a 1.9% raise (although ultimately, she would be rewarded with a 4% raise over last year). In 2008-2009, her salary was $135,609; in 2009-2010, her salary was $139,677; and for 2010-2011, the base salary for that position AS APPROVED IN THE BUDGET was $143,147. But yet, the Board of Ed approved a base salary of more than $145,000—as I’ve said before, $145K is more than $143K and, therefore, should not have been allowed.
When you combine the raise with the cash bonuses awarded under the contract, you truly have a deal that, in my opinion, was never included in the budget that had been approved. There was no way the taxpayers would have tolerated a 4% raise for the HR Director while we were cutting per pupil allocations to the schools by 10%. There is no way the taxpayers would have tolerated the payment of $1500 in travel allowances when we were reducing far more than that sum from numerous student supply accounts.
That, in its simplest terms, is why this deal has been such an affront to the taxpayers and so discouraging to parents.
I am a NHS alum and I have great confidence in the professional expertise and judgment of the new Superintendent. In the months ahead, I hope Dr. Marks will take a closer look at the some of the unethical practices that Ms. Ruotolo has exhibited over the years. It is a shame that her contact was renewed.
ReplyDeleteAs part of the evaluation process, Dr. Marks would benefit from interviewing some of the veteran Norwalk teachers who work under administrators like Fay Ruotolo. I am sure she would get an earful.
It is the teachers who champion the education of Norwalk students, not administrative bureaucrats like Ms. Ruotolo with cushy salaries.
Do I understand the raises correctly?
ReplyDeleteThe AS and the HR director are getting raises but they are taking enough furlough days to result in net income equal to what they received this past year. If my understanding is correct, these are still significant raises because they are getting the same money for working fewer days. Also, to give these people the same percentage increases that other employees receive is ridiculous because their base salaries are so much higher.
Remember also that the next contracts for these two administrators will be based upon the increased salaries. This is a good deal (for them, not for the taxpayers), and it is based upon sheer greed.
Where are the priorities? If these were people who really needed the money and who might seek employment elsewhere in order to get it, if these were people who were so good at their jobs that the BOE couldn't afford to lose them, if these were people who could easily find employment elsewhere, I could understand giving them the contracts.
My conclusion is that this is irresponsible behavior by the BOE once again. I wish for once that someone would explain the other point of view so that I might be able to understand the thinking of the board members who supported the contracts.
They get a raise and more days off. They get more days off this coming year because they have 7+ furlough days and get paid for the furlough days off in 2011-12.
ReplyDelete9:26 - I wish I could say that that cannot possibly be true, but I know some of the idiotic things this BOE has done up until now. Why would they every get paid for furlough days? Is there something about this that I simply don't understand, or are things that messed up?
ReplyDeleteOh. And you might want to look into the report that the HR director is already collecting a pension on top of her salary. (Since HR director doesn't require state certification, she can do this.) While one shouldn't have anything to do with the other, they are related in that the lady cannot be hurting for cash.
Furlough days have been put into the three year contract for the AS, as far as I understand it. He will not make additional money, and, from what I have heard, he doesn't even take all his vacation days. In three years he will be old enough to retire. In the long run, this will cost Norwalk taxpayers nothing.
ReplyDeleteHe is old enough to retire now.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt this will be Fay's last year in Norwalk. If she is not gone by January she will be gone next June. Dr. Marks and the BOE need to start cleaning up the mess. Too many administrators in Norwalk who were fired from other districts who Fay welcomed into our schools. Norwalk taxpayers are tired of paying out these large salaries to administrators who failed other districts and now seek refuge from the Norwalk money tree.
ReplyDeleteOver a week since these votes, and we're still angry and hurt and thoroughly confused.
ReplyDeleteHas to make any parent sad to realize that the majority on the Board of Education is so utterly disconnected from what we think.
It doesn't surprise me at that the six oldtimers gave Rutolo a raise. They just didn't care that Rutolo put that substitute in a classroom before getting her arrest record checked, and before checking to see if she had ever been let go by Norwalk before.
12:23, how do you live with yourself? That was an inappropriate comment to say the least!
ReplyDelete5:25 Waaaaaa!!!!!Waaaaaaa!!! Waaaaaa!!!! what's the matter? Can't deal with the truth? Why are you so offended by 12:23s comment? He/ she is certainly entitled to his/her opinion.what,so inappropriate about hhe truth?
ReplyDeleteJust a typical voter/taxpayer/parent wondering why anyone cares about how close to retirement anyone in the main office is . . .
ReplyDeleteGive me an 70 year old with a love of teaching and an appreciation of kids and their families any day over people who want to work in a cloister.
Same goes for the people on the Board of Ed where we have young and not-so-young members who care more about their friends and their $100K+ salaries rather than our kids.
Hey- 6:33, I was going to post the same thing!
ReplyDeleteAge is irrelevant. Papallo was a lousy interim because he only cared about his friends. He didn't care if he mocked the NEF, insulted the PTOC, ignored parents, or attacked the one guy who kept standing up to him. (P.S. If Colarossi was wrong complaining about waste, why were they able to cut about $5Million from the budget and not eliminate any school programs???)
Nast was younger, a lot nicer, but still pandered to the central office "team" over the schools.
Jack is disappointing (probably to many of us because we genuinely like the guy- especially those who know him from West Rocks). It has nothing to do with his age (under 50). He just seems like he's forgotten that we elected him from Dist. D because we didn't like a main office that was out-of-touch with schools.
If you follow this Board of Ed, can you tell me one appointment that Jack or Glenn ever voted against? Can you tell me one time they've voted differently than that woman from Rowayton (who is on the Democratic Town Committee)? How many times did they vote differently than Murray or Mosby?
The contract vote is just another example of why we did the right thing in bringing on the three new people.
Gregg Burnett was a lot more independent and open-minded. Why do you think that he's already being encouraged to run next year by people who don't live in his district and who aren't Dems!
5:25 - I'm not understanding why the person who posted at 5:25 was so upset by the statement that the assistant superintendent is old enough to retire. That posting merely corrected an earlier one that said he will be old enough to retire in 3 years. It certainly didn't say anything negative about him, and it didn't say that anyone thinks he should retire. Sometimes things mean exactly what they say; there isn't always a hidden meaning.
ReplyDeleteAge should not be up for discussion. It is inappropriate because it smacks of age discrimination. Someone's age has nothing to do with the kind of job he/she is doing.
ReplyDeleteIn this forum it seems that age is brought up to embarrass certain people. Why would anyone want to do that? Certainly not because he/she is a nice person. Immaturity is really the problem here. 7:53, you take the award of the year for most immature comment ever!
12:17, think about it. Why was it necessary to post that he is old enough to retire now? His age at this time is not relevant to the issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteLook. Whatever his age, he has a job and no one suggested that he should retire. No one even suggested that he is too old to do the work. Someone said he will be old enough to retire in three years, and someone else corrected that statement. Let's put this to rest and stop the overreaction.
ReplyDeleteYou have the right to ignore the comments! I guess you would rather tell people what to do...Are you the self proclaimed moderator of this forum or just a control freak?
ReplyDeleteWho cares about age? Lets get real here. We have a CO administrative team that has failed. Their failures have allowed failing principals to be hired. Dr. Marks needs to send a message to the taxpayers, staff and the district. Ineptness and buffoonery is over. The taxpayers dish out very generous salaries to to incompetent administrators. Fay allowed this to happen and even sought out failed administrators. Fay needs to go.The assistant superintendent needs to go. The principals with no people skills who cause disarray need to go. I don't care how old they are. Norwalk is not a sanctuary for failed administrators seeking refuge.
ReplyDeletePrincipals with no people skills who cause disarray?? Please, 1:35, not in Norwalk! The Marks honeymoon will allow most of them to retire with the obigatory pat on the back from their beneficient BOE! Don't expect many big changes right away. The latest moves by the BOE further enhance the fact that Norwalk continues to be that "sanctuary" that you and many others want to see disappear.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, many of the principals will return as working retirees in Norwalk. That's the Norwalk Way. Central office allows them to get away with their sometimes egregious behavior, sometimes just plain ineptitude, and then they continue to reward them if they have been among the friends of the CO.
ReplyDeleteI have less of a problem with the mistake of hiring a bad principal or other administrator than I do with allowing a bad one to continue on the payroll year after year. I can see being fooled by references and by performance during an interview, but there is no excuse for allowing these people to continue their toxic behavior.
I can see where the public would know if principals have toxic behavior, but please enlighten me as to how the public knows about the 'toxic' behavior of central office? I am not aware that the public has much contact with central office.Central office generally supervises programs. Should that lead me to the conclusion that those of you who 'know' about toxic behavior in central office are actually central office people?
ReplyDelete2:51 Really? The exploits of CO incompetence are well traveled beyond the confines of Norwalk. The CREC report is one example.
ReplyDelete2:04 - Why the knee-jerk defensiveness? I wasn't referring to the CO when I commented about toxic behavior. The reference, was to the principals and other administrators.
ReplyDeleteCan someone explain why the taxpayers of Norwalk gave a raise to CO administrators who continue to produce poor performance year after year. Wasn't Fay fired from Stamford? Does anyone honestly believe Tony is assistant superintendent material? Wait till Dr. Marks sees the disaster she has to deal with. Not to mention the incompetent principals across the district. Keep flushing mt taxes down the toilet. Toxic behavior is an understatement. Lets make this easy for Dr. Marks. Any administrator who was fired from another school district should be asked to leave. This will open up plenty of new positions. Fire Fay too so that real background checks can be done.
ReplyDeleteThe Stamford protection racket is easy to figure out. One BOE member used to teach in Stamford (Hamilton), another one works there now (Bishop-Pullan). They have connections to Ruotolo. They both voted to approve her raise and they both voted against investigating her for the substitute teacher probelm.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's not forget that our last two interim supers, Papallo and Nast, are former superintendents from Stamford. Coincidence? Hardly.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what kind of relationship Mr. Nast has with Mrs. Ruotolo, but Dr. Papallo is the person who brought her to Norwalk when he was interim superintendent during the period prior to Dr. Corda's appointment.
ReplyDeleteWhy are they supporting someone who has been a failure for years? It is not exactly a secret that Ruotolo is not capable of doing her job. She hires incompetent administrators then protects them. She makes mistakes in hiring that jeopardize the safety of children. Then she gets a raise?? The BOE members who voted for Fay are not acting in the best interest of the Norwalk community. Their vote shows disrespect for the taxpayers and school community they are suppose to represent. Marks needs to start looking for an HR person ASAP and get Fay out by December. Fay running about causing problems and protecting problem administrators will continue to damage the district. Marks would serve herself well by hiring an Interim HR person. Someone who can get the mess under control and transition the new person coming in. Having Fay removed ASAP will send a positive message to the school community and demonstrate that this new superintendent is moving the district forward. Keeping Fay sends the message of the same old game. All BOE members who support Fay need to explain why. This is another black eye. The community needs healing not a slap across the face.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand. The HR director doesn't do the interviews and doesn't make the selections; she merely oversees the paperwork process for hiring. The actual decisions are made by the interview committees, and she doesn't serve on them.
ReplyDelete9:57 Really? Are you friends with her or related? Her mismanagement has reached historic proportions. She was even called before the BOE. Even the newspaper has been following this story.
ReplyDelete11:35 - I am neither, and my feelings about her are pretty much neutral. However, I know about the hiring process, and I am not going to criticize her for something that she didn't do and that isn't her responsibility to do.
ReplyDelete11:42 is correct. I am neutral towards her as well, but I think she is getting a bum rap. Committees do the interviewing of administrators. She does not choose them. In fact, the superintendent has the final say.
ReplyDeleteWas the hiring of a fraud autism specialist a "bum rap." Was hiring and then moving a dangerous substitute a "bum rap." Not looking into the backgrounds of principals and potential employees a "bum rap." Norwalk received a bum rap because Fay was never evaluated, then awarded a large raise in a recession where many are struggling and losing their jobs. How many people, with a history of failure, got a raise during this recession.
ReplyDelete2:00 How do you know she didn't look into the backgrounds of these people? How do you know that she didn't get rave reviews of their performance in the district that wanted to get rid of them? It shouldn't be shocking to you that that's what districts do when they want to get rid of people...We've done it too!
ReplyDeleteI have been on interview committees, and I know it is the person who heads the committee who has always been the individual responsible for checking references. It is not the HR director.
ReplyDelete1:00 a.m.- Norwalk does things a lot differently. The HR director screens the applicants and checks the references here in Norwalk. The HR director is 100% responsible for every substitute teacher that's hired.
ReplyDeleteRutolo hired McNelis without getting the woman's police record check. That's incompentent and just plain wrong.
Rutolo can't figure out payroll and let's staff dangle without answers for months.
Rutolo is responsible for staff insurance questions. She has messed that up now too with lots of people having insurance paid for that the city doesn't have to (like children of employees and ex-spouses).
1:00 Spot on. Fay has been a disaster and needs to be removed from her position ASAP. Looks like Fay has her friends and family defending her on this site. Pretty lame defense and typical of failed Norwalk administrators, just blame others. Great strategy. Let's get someone in that position that will be able to do the job. Fay has failed. Time to get her out and move forward. Keeping Fay is a step backwards.
ReplyDelete