Board of Education Meeting Recap – 4/11/2010

Posted by Bob on April 11, 2010 under Daily Blogs | Read the First Comment

I would like to commend the overwhelming majority of those who attended Thursday’s night’s (4/8/2010) contentious Board of Education meeting at Western Elementary School.  The recent announcement of the Salem Elementary School closing is certainly one that has and will generate much passionate debate.  Differences of opinion, however, are important to our democratic form of government.  Provided we maintain a level of respect for one another, we will become stronger as a community for having an informed debate.

There were three (3) statements made at Thursday night’s meeting that I would like to address.  The first was made by Salem Parent-Teacher Association President Shannon Lopes with regard to whether or not it was a conflict of interest for the mayor to vote on the Board of Education to close Salem while simultaneously discussing a reuse for the building.  I would like to clarify from the start that I have known Shannon for many years, and her husband Pedro for even longer.  They are both outstanding people and parents and I am honored to call both of them friends.

The term “conflict of interest” has significant meaning for someone who comes from my background.  As an attorney, one can not practice law when there is actual, and in many cases, the appearance of conflict.  The legal section of www.thefreedictionary.com generally defines a conflict of interest as follows:

“A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.

In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the majority stockholder.

Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.”

I certainly have no personal and/or pecuniary interest in Salem School, the Town Hall or any other building in the Borough but for my home.  The use of “conflict of interest” at the meeting referred to the fact that Naugatuck’s mayor sits as a voting member of the board of education (“BoE”) and the chief executive officer of the municipal side of Borough government.  This is an unusual, but not unprecedented situation, the history of which began in the 1990′s.

The history has been described to me as follows:  Sometime during former Mayor William Rado’s second tenure and final term as Naugatuck’s mayor, the BoE prevented Mayor Rado from taking part in executive session.  While it very well may have been the BoE’s right and obligation to prevent the mayor from executive session under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Mayor Rado objected to the decision.  A charter revision was formed and one (1) of the recommendations that resulted was to include Naugatuck’s mayor as a voting member of the BoE.  The provision was approved by Naugatuck voters in the late 1990′s, and ultimately upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court after a lengthy legal battle.

I myself voted against the mayor’s inclusion as a voting member of the BoE many years ago.  The fact of the matter, however, is that the matter has long since been settled.  As mayor, I have a duty to participate in substantive matters brought before the BoE.  If one interprets a “conflict of interest” in an extremely liberal manner outside the traditional definition of the term, then every vote the mayor takes on the BoE would be in conflict.  Naugatuck’s mayor is a voting member of the BoE and also the head of municipal government that allocates the BoE’s funding.  No claims of conflict were raised when I worked with members of the Joint Boards of Finance and Mayor and Burgesses (“Joint Boards”) to resolve the current year’s budget deficit by assuming part of the BoE’s operating shortfall.  This saved jobs and programs that the BoE threatened to cut.

If I were to base my decisions purely from a political perspective, I would avoid matters involving the BoE like the plague.  This is a luxury afforded to many mayors and first selectmen in other towns who do not sit on their respective boards of education.  From my humble viewpoint, however, education is too important a topic not to have an opinion.  I will honor my obligations as mayor and BoE member, even if members of our community respectfully disagree with my decisions.

Given the ethical obligations of my profession, I have a heightened sensitivity when one alleges a conflict of interest.  While I understand the nature of the argument, I do not agree with its application in this instance.

The second (2nd) statement I would like to address is that made by Anne Ciacciarella at the end of Thursday’s (4/8/2010) meeting.  Ms. Ciacciarella dramatically told the entire BoE that our “legacy” would be defined by closing Salem school.  As I stated on the night I was sworn-in to office, my life will not be defined by anything I do as Naugatuck’s mayor.  The most important role, or “legacy”, I will have in my life is that of a husband and father.  Long after my days in public office are over, the never-ending and often failing goal to be the best Spouse and Dad I can be will be the most important focus of my life.

If I was so narcissistic to think of public service in terms of my legacy, it would be characterized by far simpler perimeters.  I do not expect that everyone will agree with every decision I make.  I strive to make decisions that are in the best interest of the only hometown I have ever known.  Attempting to achieve universal consensus is not only impossible, but bad leadership.  All I can do is analyze information, communicate openly and honestly, respect differences of opinion and vote my conscience.  I do not shy away from disagreement, and often learn from opposing viewpoints.

I would be pleased to discuss this matter with Ms. Ciacciarella, but that dialogue has been lacking.  Despite being a parent, former parent-school group president and the current mayor, I have been blocked from her Facebook site for which she deemed herself the leader.  Apparently Ms. Ciacciarella does not share my belief in diversity of opinion, particularly when she is asked for substantive solutions to our community’s pressing matters and fails to offer any.  I not only support but encourage the concept of the citizens’ audit committee that Ms. Ciacciarella has proposed.  The results and/or recommendations that will result from the committee, however, will involve much more than painless antidotes to our current economic crisis.  Improving “efficiency” ultimately involves eliminating jobs and programs and consolidating operations as is currently being proposed.  The belief that there is a magic solution to the coming year’s budget problems that avoids sacrifice is pure fantasy.

The last matter from Thursday’s (4/8/2010) meeting I would like to address is the suggestion made by Prospect Street parent association member Phil Zembruski to form a elementary school building committee.  I wholeheartedly agree that such a building committee should be formed.  While the concept deserves more forethought than could be made “on-the-spot” at Thursday’s meeting, it is an excellent suggestion given the advice from the JCJ architectural study.  While the Borough is in no place to fund the construction of another elementary school anytime soon, there certainly will be a need to modernize Naugatuck’s stock of elementary schools in the next five (5) to ten (10) years.  Given the time it takes to determine a location, identify an architect, propose a building and identify funding; the groundwork for such an endeavor should begin now.  Unlike previous school construction proposals, such a project is not about space but building equity and modernization.  Naugatuck “dropped the ball” in the relatively wealthy decade of the 1990′s; we should not do so again during future times of prosperity.  Bad economic times should not be an excuse for failing to foresee the needs of the future.  Planning costs little to nothing, and our past history indicates that we, as a community, have been far more reactive than proactive in this area.  Thanks to Mr. Zembruski for bringing this idea to the BoE’s attention.

This coming week will involve more meetings in preparation for a final budget.  A workshop will take place on Monday, April 12, 2010, at 7:15 PM.  Although I believe the BoE’s public hearing should coincide with the Joint Board’s annual budget public hearing, it appears BoE leadership would prefer to hold a separate BoE budget public hearing.  Said hearing is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, April 15, 2010, 7:00 PM, at a location to be determined.  All meetings are open to the public.