This e-mail below will make for some intersting reading for many. Hartfortd City Councilman apparently first sent the e-mail below to voice his displeasure with several issues before the Hartford Board of Education.
The BOE Chair,Richard Wareing replied back with a rather sharply worded e-mail. Wareing's responses are in red below.
It is also interesting to note that many of the issues raised by Dr Deutsch were first reported and raised here on
"We the People"
Does it really take blog postings for people to may attention?
From: Deutsch, Larry
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 7:24 AM
Subject: Open letter to Board members: can you read it before Monday meeting? -- from Council member Dr. L. Deutsch
ATTACHED and below
OPEN LETTER to MEMBERS OF HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION
With all the controversy these days about budgets for the City of Hartford, and the Hartford Public Schools in particular, it may be helpful to convey, again, some views of many citizens from a City Council standpoint.
1. Many are outraged about recent expenditures of over $61,000 for out-of-state travel while paraprofessionals, teachers, guidance counselors, social workers, and other front-line school staff suffer layoffs.
Agreed, which is why the budget for professional development and travel has been slashed by approximately an additional $450,000 and all travel will have to be centrally approved. This money will help preserve jobs in schools, particularly in neighborhood schools.
2. Even more, many reject proposed spending for over 100 employees within the Public School system for salaries in the $120,000 to $150,000 range for directors, deans, associates, and deputies, with the Superintendent and several others still higher, for a total well over $12 Million – while these paraprofessionals, teachers, guidance counselors, social workers, and other front-line school staff suffer layoffs.
To the extent we are talking about administrators, most of them are unionized and their salaries are fixed by their respective CBA’s, just as the salaries of most city workers are so fixed. The administrators we are referring to all typically have advanced degrees and many have doctorates and their salaries are not out of line with what their colleagues in surrounding systems are making and are usually less than what their colleagues at CREC make.
Moreover, the fringe benefits these employees receive are about 65%of what their colleagues at city hall receive, with the City’s fringe rate being at about 55 cents for every dollar of salary and the Board’s being about 36. Thus, a Board administrator who makes $100,000 in salary costs the Board about $135,000 while a city administrator who makes $85,000 costs the City about $131,750. Moreover, unlike many city departments, well-compensated employees at the Board are salaried, rather than hourly, meaning we don’t have the overtime issues that are crippling the HPD’s budget (to name just one), nor do we have issues with employees using overtime to bump their base pay for pension purposes.
Frankly, it is disingenuous for you, or anyone else at City Hall to criticize the compensation structure of the Board when the City’s is and has been for a decade totally out of control and virtually nothing has been done to correct it.
3. It should be clear that the City Council appropriation for the Board of Education was kept to the minimum legally required. Council and public members rejected such wasteful spending. There was awareness that the Board had taken the unusual step of failing to adopt its budget until AFTER City Council made that allocation. Despite an attempt to increase Council appropriation IF it were guaranteed to benefit directly the children and neighborhood schools and staff members, it was said that the Board and Superintendent “could not be trusted” to adhere to its stated budget in the future.
This is perhaps the second most disingenuous thing any elected official has said in the last 5 years, an accolade for which there is considerable competition. The Council had no intention of appropriating more than the legal minimum. The truth is this. In FY 17 the City will appropriate approximately $93m to the Board of the City’s own money. In FY 12 the City appropriated $93.7m of the city’s own money to the Board. In FY 17 the City will spend $553m, In FY 12 it spent $545m. The City has, as is its right, engaged in long-term strategy of funding education at the minimum even as its own spending increased. It has nothing to do with “trusting” the Board. It has everything to do with maximizing the revenue the City has available for what it believes are its priorities, which includes only the minimum investment in education.
4. There is community outrage about Board and Superintendent failures to follow policies for school closures and student transfers related to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School – with neither a plan for its restoration NOR for relocation of students into a temporary and satisfactory building.
This is the most disingenuous. City government – which includes you – has made clear there is now no money for an MLK reconstruction, despite a decade of promises that a rebuild was “just around the corner.” When I became BOE Chair in 2014 I told Council during the budget hearing that MLK would either have to be rebuilt or closed. You were at that meeting, but apparently weren’t listening.
Nothing that is happening should come as a surprise. The City’s funding priorities, including the baseball stadium, are what is driving the decisions vis-a-vis MLK. Please take ownership of the government of which you have been a part for the better part of a decade and stop blaming the Board for the City’s lack of financial discipline and its poor priorities, especially vis-Ã -vis the CIP.
5. There are questions about whether this “public” meeting on morning of June 6, 2016 is legal, allowing for attendance with fair and adequate notice to public and City Council.
The only “question” is the one you raise rhetorically. Our meeting was noticed in conformity with the law. It is a public and lawful meeting. Even you – with your total ignorance of and disregard for procedure - must see that. As for the Council not receiving notice, I will note that notice of meetings is given to the City Clerk, who reports to Council.
6. There is outrage about failure to rectify a pattern of “poor judgment” with risk to school children from an employed staff member, AND failure by supervisors, including a chief attorney, to respond as legally required reporters of suspected abuse, with suspicion of cover-up.
I agree there is outrage, and I agree that it is warranted. I will say nothing more on this subject, particularly with respect to the law and/or who may or may not have broken it, until #1 HPD makes clear its own investigation is done and #2 the Child Advocate has issued her report on our policies and procedures. This is a serious issue and it will be treated seriously, and not as a debating point, especially in the context of budget discussions, with which it has no connection.
Is it too late to correct these problems?
If this hasty meeting today (June 6) proceeds now to final budget adaptation, will there be a chance first for additional public comments?
There is nothing hasty about this meeting. As you note, it is 3 weeks later than normal. As we always do, we held a public hearing to solicit input and we received plenty of it. As we always do, we will enact the budget at a special meeting called for that purpose. Nothing unfair nor procedurally irregular is occurring.
Are Board members aware that justifying the current salary structure as ‘market rate’ – with some administrators receiving excessively high salaries while paraprofessionals, teachers, guidance counselors, social workers, and others receive layoffs – is unacceptable?
If you would take the time to actually examine our budget you will see that central office exclusive of transportation took a much greater share of the cuts as a % of spending than did the schools. Indeed, the most senior staff was cut by 1/3 and the rest have foregone their raises this year. Teachers, social workers, etc. will receive their contractually-agreed upon raises in conformity with their CBA’s. Moreover, as noted above, central office administration bore a far larger share of the cuts than did any school as a % of spending.
For violations of Board policy on school closings and suspected abuse reporting, are members calling for full disclosure, or face investigation by outside State legal authorities?
The Board, not the State, is arbiter of the interpretation, applicability, and enforcement of the Board’s own policies. As for the alleged abuse issue, see my response above.
As they make budget and policy decisions, do all Board members seeking re-appointment or re-election realize that these positions themselves are at risk?
I won’t dignify this with a response, especially in so far as it is a threat toward the appointed members that, if they pass this budget, you will not support their reappointment, should that occur. The reality – which you have, for the better part of a decade, stubbornly refused to recognize – is that the Council does not determine how the Board spends money. Under the law, Council’s only role is to determine the amount of money the City will provide, which it has done. It is now for the Board to determine how the money will be spent.
This is by specific design of the General Statutes, precisely so that grandstanding municipal politicians like you cannot manipulate school finances and expenditures to serve their own political agendas while not having accountability for the results. Indeed, I acknowledge that, if it was up to you, poor children (which is to say, other peoples’ children), would have no school choice in Hartford and that they would be forced to attend the school closest to them, regardless of its quality or suitability; all because of your ideological inflexibility. Fortunately for those poor children, it is not up to you.
Larry Deutsch, Hartford City Council
Finally, I am still waiting for the answer to the question I posed to you during the budget hearing; i.e. will you forgo your annual salary in this time of financial crisis? The members of the Board serve without compensation because they believe that public service is exactly that. Will you join us in making a statement to our City that its leaders should serve, rather than be served?
RFW
