Here's an op-ed by Board of Education Member Sue Haynie:
I like plans. I think parents and staff and taxpayers like plans. And, especially when making large financial decisions of a personal nature or as an acting Norwalk Board of Ed (BOE) member, I like plans. The Norwalk BOE reconciled the 2011/12 Operating Budget on June 14th by making $4.1 million of reductions and we did so without a plan. We didn’t use Superintendent Marks reconciled Budget as a guide even though it was an articulated plan containing thoughtful and meticulous suggestions based on 6 months of stakeholder discussion of how best to make $4.6 million dollars of painful cuts. We didn’t use Superintendent Marks reconciled Budget as a guide even though, because of union concessions and internal adjustments made since her original May 2011 reconciliation, $723,000 could be put back at the get-go and even though she had provided prioritized suggestions for position reinstatement.
Instead, BOE Finance Chair Mr. Colarassi orchestrated a presentation whereby we used as a template the budget recommendations of two committees: his 3-member BOE Finance Committee and that of the Budget Committee with its strong Union voice. Neither of these two committees had reconciled their Budgets, nor had made all the necessary painful decisions, so both were short over $1 Million dollars. Both of these two committees violated elements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by their lack of recorded votes, a Connecticut act that is in large part about transparency of government. Neither of these two committees presented anyone an articulated plan that this Board member is aware of. Additionally, we as a full 9-member Board did not meet prior to June 14th to fully review either the BOE Finance or the Budget Committee plans. We as a 9-member Board did not have our own plan either.
So, on June 14th the Norwalk BOE had to make over $4.1 million in cuts. The dire economy and the core mission of educating our youth demanded that we make fiscally conservative and highly targeted, goal-centered decisions. We didn’t do that. We winged it. We went down the list as suggested by the BOE Finance Chair, keeping some and throwing other positions and functions off the bus, each decision based on our own agendas, opinions, and emotions; data and due diligence be hanged.
This is clearly not the way to protect our children’s educational needs, instill confidence with the city taxpayers or run a $154 million dollar business. The sole purpose of public schools is to educate all our children well. We hired a Superintendent with the expertise and track record to do this and it requires change and new ways of thinking. This is making some people very uncomfortable. It is time for the political and personal agendas of the adults in this City to get out of the way; our children our waiting.
Posts
I can't believe you would go public with this argument. Well, since you decided to take on a public argument with the members of YOUR Board of Education....
ReplyDeleteSteve was looking out for the classrooms and our students. The superintendent was mostly interested in saving the Director's job which was being considered for cuts. Now that the position has been cut, she has put forth a new Director's position (as I hear it). I understand that the new central office director's position makes no sense whatsoever as a 12 month job, or even as a position. Word is that is has been crafted for her friend. The superintendent's priorities are just not with the students. On her behalf, she is new to Norwalk and doesn't understand that grade one aides, for example, are the best resource we have in the classroom. The grade one aides don't get paid very much, have limited benefits at half price and are extremely important to principals for a number of reasons. Steve listened to teachers, principals and parents. This was on the 'cut' list by the superintendent.
....I am still amazed that this has been turned into a public fight. Shame on you!
Having been busy with wedding plans this weekend, I haven't had the opportunity to track the three media outlets in which Ms. Haynie published her rather fanciful tale of budget planning and fiscal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteIt does, however, make for a good starting point with what I hope will be a meaningful community discussion about how the school budget should be formulated and debated in the future.
I'm hoping that both sides of this debate can avoid the invective of Mrs. Haynie and the frustration of many parents in our city who felt that their children's needs were overlooked by superintendent's initial budget and cut-lists.
The questions, as I see them, is:
1. What exactly was the superintendent's "plan" when she proposed an "un-recommended" budget and then when she replaced her successive cut lists with a "menu" of savings associated with various cuts?
2. How would the proposed draconian cuts to elementary education (such as eliminating first grade aides, intervention aides and some assistant principals) help us to close the achievement gap?
3. What should the role be for the Superintendent's own hand-selected Budget Committee (being mindful that, in my opinion, Supt. Marks had every right to hold confidential meetings with her advisors in this regard)?
Steve & Sue,
ReplyDeleteOn one hand I applaud much of what both of you are doing in terms of your fiscal conservative natures (although you both differ stylistically)and both of your desires to protect the classrooms, but how is it that BOTH of you and the ENTIRE board let 2 of the 4 middle schools and the 2 high schools get discpline-focused administrator jobs put back into the budget at the expense of smaller class sizes or closing the achievement gap in the elementary schools? Strangely enough, I didn't hear from our NFT President either? A new CFO comes in and negotiates a lower premium rate for insurance for the district to the tune of $500K and the best we can spend it on is administration? Where's the student database, where are the student programs? Whether it is central office or the buildings,in these tough times,I would simply like to understand the logic of the board to vote for discipline over academics or achievement?
Ms. Thompson, every time i read this blog site you are second guessing every decision and every person on the board. If you think you can do a better job than go ahead and run for the Board. You will never be happy with anything unless it is done the way you want it done.
ReplyDeleteMs. Haynie, you were elected to provide leadership to our School system but all i see is arguing, finger pointing, blame game, etc... For someone who labels themselves as an education specialist what does your arguing teach our students? You are a great example of what a Board of Ed member should not be! Try working with the rest of the board for a change.
Is there anyone that Sue Haynie isn't smarter than?
ReplyDeleteShe's attacking the superintendent because of the superintendent's budget committee. Didn't Supt. Marks pick every member of the Budget Committee so that they'd advise her? Why doesn't Sue want the supt. to have her own advisors?
Final question-- why is Sue Haynie attacking herself? She voted for the final budget, right? Is she that upset with herself that she didn't put 50 kids in every elementary classroom and eliminate elementary and middle school AT?
Steve, thank you as always, for taking the high road in the midst of this BOE member's latest unwarranted personal attack against you. Sue, it is my duty to speak my piece here as a parent, an NPS employee, and a taxpayer. Incidentally, I did vote for you, but I will not make that mistake again. I find your editorial to be another in a series of distasteful attacks against your fellow BOE member. You have taken on the role of the chief apologist for the superintendent so you can maintain your influence with her.
ReplyDelete12:34, you are so right. Your last statement says it all! The superintendent has shown a horrible lack of good judgement by choosing the buddies who surround her. Those who influence this superintendent are giving her the worst advice possible. Too bad.
ReplyDelete2:42 I agree. The elementary schools need first grade aides. The vice principals can be gotten rid of if the principal was any good. But yet again I say, why are they not assessed or evaluated on the sam elevel that our teachers are? The elementary supervisor was not working out and frankly was not respected. A lot more need to go. Some who are doing very little to help the students they were hired to help.
ReplyDeleteWell - did anyone read Steve's attack of Susan Wallerstein? Seems Steve has the free hand to be critical of whoever he wants - but please to do not have audacity to question his actions or opinions. I think there was some name calling in that editoral.
ReplyDeleteFor what is it worth, Wallerstein was an excellent French teacher in the NPS for many years - have no idea about what she did or didn't do in Greenwich.
Steve ran his campaign as the the great educator but can't figure out the math regarding his educational experience from his published resume. Regardless, this really doesn't matter - but let stop slinging the mud Steve.
My real message is - please don't be condescending to anyone who has a differing opinion. The public deserves to hear the opinions of all our elected officials. After all, we need to cast our vote for the individuals who we believe have best served the public.
Congrats on what I assume is your pending wedding.
The public does not deserve to see their BOE mudslinging in public. Remember Sue Haynie published this article and Steve was simply responding. Steve, keep up the excellent work. I am impressed!
ReplyDeleteSue,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your article. This current board is all about their personal agendas. Steve C. has no idea how this district can run after he voted to cut the CO positions. Regarding the first grade and intervention aides-they have been in the classrooms for over 10 years, so how come the same schools are still failing?
Congrats to you on your wedding, Steve. Don't let a person who panders to the superintendent tamp down your spirit. Those of us in the trenches know and appreciate what you are doing for the school system and ALL of our kids across the board. Continue to hold your head high.
ReplyDeleteThank you Steve. You are the voice of reason on the BOE. I believe you look at the issues critically and take a stance that supports all the students in this town without pandering to group interests.
ReplyDeleteMoina, I don't understand why you would publish Sue Haynie's Op-Ed and not Steves Op-Ed. I would like to see it on this site as well so people could comment about it too.
I can't necessarily condone the bantering and belittling between BOE members. It is unprofessional and demeening. I think we're all just sick of it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do appreciate that Steve is bringing a point of view that would spark debate between the members. Although the debate is not being properly managed by the BOE Chairman. I voted for Steve because my hope was that the days of giving the Superintendant whatever Corda wanted, without question, would end. It is the job of the BOE to oversee some aspects of NPS (Budget, Hiring, etc), so with respect to the budget, they should question the Superintendant and ask for impact statements of cuts.
Dr. Marks does need a core management team to run NPS effectively. I hope Dr. Marks provides the documents they need to support your management team structure. Validate your structure and go forward with your plans. Good luck.
Seems to me the parents who claimed not to be politicians are realizing it's not that simple. I wonder what their reelection slogan will be.
ReplyDeleteWhat a statement! The first grade aides have been in place for 10 years and the schools are still failing? Can you imagine how much more they would be failing without the extra help? Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about!
ReplyDeleteSue Haynie voted for the final budget. That means she voted for all those cuts! Where was her plan? It's sad that Sue Haynie wants to have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteI know Steve C. can be long winded and that he sometimes sounds a little bit like Perry Mason (he was a tv lawyer for you youngsters). But the guy was front and center to help elementary school kids even though his children are older. Is that reason enough for Sue Haynie to dislike him so much?
Norwalk needs to work together. I don't know much about Bridgeport Schools and their now defunct BOE but let's learn from their mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI don't see Sue making any argument for why Supt. Marks' cuts were better than Steve's. I'm a parent and I thought that Steve's plan was better. In fact all I see is Sue Haynie making the same case against her former running mate that she raised on this website a few weeks ago (you know where said that Steve was telling "half-truths").
ReplyDeleteSue, once you lose a vote on the BOE you have to figure out why no one votes with you. Don't blame your colleagues, do a little reflection and figure out what you're doing wrong.
let the superintendent create and develop a team that she selects and knows can do the job.
ReplyDeletewhat she has left is one person that has been undermining her for quite some time, and others in the past...like a computer virus.
I think you have Sue expressing her frustration with the dynamics or lack thereof of the BOE and she seems to be willing to put herself in the firing line in order to express it.
ReplyDeleteWith all that is going on in education, one has to ask themselves what 'qualifies' someone to be on the BOE and manage/support $150M +/- budget that is directed at raising the bar of academic achievement in a time of financial crisis. There are bound to be differences of opinion.
I do believe that there are many BoE members new and old who are taking out prior NPS (ie Corda frustration) and dumping it on the new Super and at the same time cutting her staff before she can get any traction. This blog seems to have captured much vitirol against a woman (ie Marks) that seems undeserved. Is she possibly someone getting caught in the middle of NPS politics that go further back than her 12 months?
I, for one, am judging the new superintendent on her own actions. I had high hopes for her. Unfortunately the hopes have gone down the drain. Her plans for the budget alone were poor. Her presence in the public is great, but her relationships with her paid employees and with central office are very poor. I was hoping for better.
ReplyDeleteTwo Board of Education members flying sorties against one another’s character must be an awfully distressing site for the parents and taxpayers who expect that that level of passion should be reserved for working on the issues that affect our students and our schools. Fortunately, one needn’t engage in Mrs. Haynie’s broader debate (as to whether I am a mere snake oil salesman or a Svengali controlling the actions of our seven fellow very independent BOE colleagues) to address the specific issues raised in her tome.
ReplyDeleteThe Superintendent formed the Budget Committee to advise her. I supported her effort to form her workgroup on the budget (her “Budget Committee”) and I believe that she is entitled to the confidential advice of that committee. In reading Mrs. Haynie’s posting, however, one wouldn’t know that the superintendent selected all of the members of her Budget Committee, that she established the agendas for the meetings, that only one non-employee was on the committee, that no BOE members were on the committee and that she was the chairperson of her Budget Committee. Despite the rhetorical acumen displayed in trying to cast the Budget Committee as being independent of and antagonistic to the superintendent such a claim would not be accurate, but was made nonetheless.
Next, Mrs. Haynie endeavors to cast a pale over the recommendations of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee, of which I am chairperson, has public meetings at which the general public is encouraged to actively participate. I do not limit public comment to the start of our meetings, but rather seek to encourage open dialogues and questions throughout our agendas. The agendas are provided to the central office for posting as are the minutes. The Finance Committee complies with the Freedom of Information Act. We decided at our May 19th meeting to see if we could reach unanimous decisions about certain of the proposed budget cuts—our goal was to present less controversial cuts to the entire BOE in the hope of streamlining the budget deliberations. We reached consensus on over $2 Million in cuts and asked that draft minutes be presented to the entire BOE. We also asked the COO to present on the spreadsheet created by his staff to reflect Supt. Marks’ first proposed, then recommended, then “menu” selection of cuts, those areas in which we had reached consensus. Consensus votes are specifically allowed under FOIA (see the Whiting case from 1989 for evidence of that). Certainly, if one disagrees with the work of the Finance Committee, one could allege any technical legal violation, whether true or not.
[In my second posting, I will address the absence of any consistent plan proffered by Supt. Marks or advocated by Mrs. Haynie].
I don’t know of any budget plan proposed by Supt. Marks. Remember that the budget she presented to the BOE in January was her “un-recommended” budget; this budget would have cut the swim team and intervention aides (among other student-harming cuts) at a time when she had unilaterally decided to pay 2 employees nearly double their salaries to take temporary promotions (that hadn't been disclosed to the BOE). Hard to understand why anyone would vote in favor of supporting an “un-recommended” budget—much less an “un-recommended” budget that saved Central Office positions while cutting student programs.
ReplyDeleteThe overwhelming majority of the BOE rejected that budget & voted to request a larger sum from the City (which was denied).
With the arrival of the new COO, we learned that the underlying basis for the budget was fatally flawed, and included a considerable deficit, unrealistic assumptions and faulty projections. This analysis resulted in a conclusion that in order to fund a same-services budget for 2011-2012, we needed over $159,000,000.
We reviewed which of the “same services” we could cut & what the respective savings would be from those cuts. In the first week of May, Supt. Marks presented successive drafts of her “recommended” cuts. About half of these cuts had been suggested in a February proposal for which impact statements had been offered. But, that left nearly half of her proposed cuts with no impact statement or implementation plan. When we finally did see these plans (at the May 19th Finance Committee meeting), the superintendent had abandoned a “recommended” cut list and instead offered a “menu” of budget items and their associated cost (which exceeded the amount needed to balance the budget).
I did not see any consistent plan in what had been offered. First, we were being asked to cut elementary school teaching positions even though we did not have final projections for next year’s enrollments. Secondly, we were asked to cut four middle school teachers that would have resulted in the elimination of the Middle School Academically Talented Program. Third, we were advised by the superintendent to cut intervention aides, first grade aides and some assistant principals in the elementary schools while preserving the Director of Elementary Education position. My plan was to promote student learning by leaving in-school services intact; that’s why I looked at non-classroom areas overlooked on any of the superintendent’s list (such as reducing legal fees, operating expenses and advertising budgets) and advocated for reducing central office positions before reducing school-based positions.
There was no “reconciled” budget offered by Supt. Marks, as she had abandoned a list of “recommended” cuts. Therefore, there was no plan to follow.
What did make the budget deliberation process a bit confusing at that meeting in June was that, in the absence of a proposed reconciled budget from the Superintendent, a document which had been created by Mrs. Haynie was offered as the template to guide our discussions. Now, no one had seen that document. It was not publicly available (although, in fairness, it was culled from previously public documents). However, the document contained the fiction that the superintendent had “recommended” cuts; this was simply not true as she had replaced her “recommended” cuts with a mere menu of possible cuts. If we are to believe that the menu was a “plan”, then how could anyone who supports promoting closing the achievement gap (for which we know early childhood learning to be critical) support a “plan” that eliminated first grade aides) or support a “plan” that would have increased elementary school class size (in the absence of definitive data on enrollments) or support a “plan” that would have created inequality among the elementary schools by telling four schools that they only get a ½ time assistant principal (despite eliminating their intervention aides as well). Sorry, if that was the “plan”, that was a bad plan and one I was proud to vote against.
Steve- good response and lots of easy facts. Don't know why you're being attacked by Marks' minions (sorry, just watched Despicable Me with the kids).
ReplyDeleteOnly one thing I would change-- next time, please, use bullet points. Just don't stop fighting for our kids! :)
Moina,
ReplyDeleteI think Steve's response, with his permission, should be shared as an article separately from this article. It is outstanding! Bravo Steve!!!!! I admire you for standing up for the students and for what is right. We all hoped a new superintendent would be child oriented. We were wrong. Thank heavens for Steve!
Out of curiosity, what were the promotions that Marks was thinking about that would have doubled her employees' salary? Were they Central Office employees?
ReplyDeleteI asked Steve if he wanted to share his comments as a separate post. He said that he preferred them to put them under Sue's opinion piece.
ReplyDeleteMoina, of course he wants to keep his comments under Sue - easy for her to get attacked. Now on the other hand, Sue, write your opinion on a voting or solution matter when you vote against it. You voted for it, you can't write against it after the fact.
ReplyDelete