Norwalk Public School's appointment of a new Chief Operating Officer has been delayed a couple of days. The candidacy of Craig Drezek was on the Board of Education’s agenda during Tuesday night’s meeting, but the Board decided to table approval of the appointment because his contract had not been made available to the public in advance.
“I have concerns with how this process was done. This is an issue of transparency,” said Board member Migdalia Rivas. Norwalk’s new Superintendent Susan Marks was embarassed by the breach in protocol and told the Board “This was my error in process.”
Veteran board member Jody Bishop Pullan clarified for Marks that in Norwalk the contracts of the Superintendent and her executive team including those of the Assistant Superintendent, COO, and head of HR are required by law to be made public prior to board approval.
Drezek, is currently superintendent of Regional School District 6 , a small school system in Litchfield County. He is slated to make $168,000 according to documents that were provided to the board, but information about his $7,000 annuity and other benefits were only discussed at the meeting. Drezek has an accounting degree from Teikyo Post University and received a master's degree in education from Sacred Heart University.
Drezek will replace Dan Cook who has been interim Chief Operating Officer for two and a half years, and served under four superintendents during that time. Cook will become the interim Director of Finance for Bridgeport Public Schools starting January. Drezek will not come to Norwalk until February.
Drezek was not in attendance during Tuesday night’s meeting. A special meeting of the BOE will be held on Thursday morning to approve his contract.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm surprised that Fay Ruotolo did not inform Dr. Marks about the district policy.
ReplyDeleteSomeone should have told the superintendent BEFORE the meeting that there was going to be a problem presenting the contract. Even if it was only shortly before the meeting, the matter could have been tabled.
ReplyDeleteDr. Marks is a classy person to say that it was her error, but she can't be guilty of an error if no one ever told her about the policy in the first place.
Agree with poster above, Would have come in handy if veteran Jody Pullen had told the Superintendent BEFORE the meeting.
ReplyDeleteSeveral issues need to be addressed regarding this problem:
ReplyDelete1. Has the Board's Executive Committee been meeting? These meetings, which include the Superintendent, are used to make up Board agendas. These meetings, which are open to the public and must be posted, are especially important with a new Superintendent who might not be aware of CT. laws and Norwalk practices.
2. If the Executive Committee of the Board has been meeting, why didn't anyone inform Marks that the terms of the contract needed to be examined by the full Board in closed Executive Session? And further: Why didn't anyone inform her about the need to provide the public ample time to read and think about its terms?
3. Scheduling a meeting Thursday morning, with the minimum 24 hours notice, certainly does not conform to the spirit, if not the letter, of the court ruling that requires the Board to allow the public to weigh in on the terms. If the Board votes Thursday morning, when will the public have an opportunity to have its say?
This is the problem with a board of ed where veterans never want to disagree with the superintendent (but do they not even give her a suggestion if they know she's making a mistake?).
ReplyDeleteIt's like deja vu all over again ~~~~~
http://www.yourct.com/2007/08/norwalk-corda-gets-huge-rubber-stamped-contract-extension/
Why is there always such a lack of communication in NPS? Once again, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
ReplyDeleteIt is NOT Jody Bishop Pullen's job to inform the superintendent of the process. It is the chairman's job. How could she know that the chairman isn't doing the job? This is a Republican Board!
ReplyDeleteMy question is how does this brand new appointee get what I am assuming is a $12000 raise over the salary of the old CFO? (I am including the extra $7000, which is salary!) We are eliminating positions and we award a $12000 increase in this salary?????
As the veteran member and if she was a professional she would have notified the new chair of this. This was a political issue this was just doing what's right.
ReplyDelete6:34, you are not listening. How was she supposed to know that the process wasn't taking place? Besides, shouldn't the new chair have asked what the process was? That's what I would have done if I were the new chair. To blame Jody is playing politics of the worst kind!
ReplyDeleteIt's called C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N. The partisanship exhibited by the board and the blogs is not helpful towards raising the bar for our children. Last time I checked...our Norwalk children aren't affiliated with either political party.
ReplyDelete7:34, I give up. IMHO, you are not living in the real world.
ReplyDeleteSusan Marks does not come from a district where there was transparency.
ReplyDeleteFor example,her previous Superintendent's contract was only made public after a FOIA was filed 11 YEARS AFTER his appointment.
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/09/for-1st-time-in-11-yearsjerry-weasts.html
Transparency is going to be new to her.
10:36 - I don't know if your posting was intended to be a criticism of Dr. Marks, but if anyone construes it as such, I ask what the airing of a superintendent's contract has to do with her. She was the superintendent's subordinate, not his/her superior, nor was she a member of the school board. Therefore, The experience in her former state doesn't reflect at all on the Norwalk superintendent's own attitudes toward or awareness of transparency. It is true that she had no way to know about Norwalk's murky past with Dr. Corda's contract, but the board members (or her own Assistant Superintendent) could have told her about it.
ReplyDeleteDid I misunderstand your point?