Board of Education Meeting Minutes Part 1

April 24, 2007

ATTENDANCE: Jody Bishop-Pullan, Chair; Thomas Vetter, Susan Hamilton, Robert Polley, Rosa Murray, Bruce Kimmel, Richard Fuller, Gregory Burnett, Migdalia Rivas (7:10 p.m.)

STAFF: Dr. Salvatore Corda, Superintendent of Schools

OTHERS: Bruce Mellion, Norwalk Federation of Teachers President, Attorney James Ferguson, Mark Gorian, Ralph Valenzisi

I. CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Bishop-Pullan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Ms. Bishop-Pullan led the Board and the audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. HEARING OF NFT GRIEVANCE

Ms. Bishop-Pullan opened the hearing on the NFT Grievance at 7:02 p.m.

Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.

Atty. Ferguson introduced himself and identified himself as the counsel to the Norwalk Teachers Federation (NFT). He said that he was presenting a Level 3 grievance, regarding the rates of pay pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement for Athletic Directors, formerly known as Faculty Managers. Atty. Ferguson then distributed copies of the Grievance Form to the members of the Board.

Atty. Ferguson stated that the NFT believes that this is matter of clear contract obstruction. Atty. Ferguson then distributed copies of the comprehensive group contract and a Letter of Agreement, which was entered into between the BOE and the NFT, which relates to the subject matter as a grievance to the Board.

Atty. Ferguson pointed out that the grievance claims a violation of Appendix A – 8 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which is the section that covers comprehensive group contracts. He then directed the Board’s attention to the last two lines on page 60, “Faculty Manager, Boys” and “Faculty Manager, Girls”. He also indicated that the fourth line over is the third step of each “Faculty Manager, Boys” and “Faculty Manager, Girls”. This is referred in the Letter of Agreement, which was executed between Ralph Sloan, the former Superintendent and Bruce L. Mellion on June 19, 1996. Specifically, the Letter of Agreement provides that there shall be a Faculty Manager, one Boys’ and one Girls’ at each high school. It also states that the title “Faculty Manger” shall be changed to Athletic Director or Directors. Number 3 provides that Mrs. Couch in her secretarial capacity shall remain in her current position to assist the Athletic Directors. Atty. Ferguson stated that since that time, Mrs. Couch was replaced by Ms. Sacks and later Ms. Dixon. Part of the grievance is that because of other issues that Central Administration has, the Athletic Directors no longer have a full time secretary, which impacts upon their ability to do their jobs.

Regarding Number 7, the Athletic department budget, which the Athletic Director shall oversee shall remain in the Central Office and not in the respective schools. Atty. Ferguson stated that this is no longer possible because there is no full time secretary and this has added an additional burden to the Athletic Directors.

Mr. Kimmel asked what the phrase “the budgets shall remain” meant. Atty. Ferguson explained that the former secretary would purchase items from the Central Office, but now the Athletic Directors must do it from the various schools. Before, there was a full time person to deal with clerical matters. Atty. Ferguson gave an example of one of the Athletic Directors having to order pompons for a cheerleading squad. This was in addition to all the other things they oversee, such as Junior Varsity sports, Varsity sports, the educational programs at their respective schools, the middle school programs and scheduling. Now because of the lack of secretarial support, the Athletic Directors have to take over duties that were formerly done by a full time secretary. Atty. Ferguson then directed the Board to page 10, where it states that the Athletic Director will develop, implement and educate students in the sports activity with four additional things they must do. Under that, the Athletic Directors are also required to at the invitation of the middle school physical education teachers and/or principals, assist in sports areas where it is felt they need assistance. This is something the Athletic Directors are called upon to do on a regular basis.

Under Number 9, it states that the Athletic Directors shall have a reduced teaching load of one additional period to the extent possible for the school year 1995-1996 and each school year thereafter, Atty. Ferguson stated.

Ms. Rivas joined the meeting at 7:10 p.m.

Atty. Ferguson continued with the fact that Number 13 provides compensation in that each Athletic Director shall be compensated in the school year 1995-1996 and retroactive to 1995 and each school year thereafter at a rate of two times the current contract rate for three years experience as a Faculty Manager, as found on page 54 of the 1993-1994 Comprehensive Contract. Since then, Atty. Ferguson pointed out that new contracts have been negotiated and he indicated that on page 60, the Faculty Manger is now called the Athletic Director. The third step is the fourth line on 6483.

The graviment of the complaint, Atty. Ferguson said, was that sometime in early 2000, although the positions of Athletic Directors are posted for Boys and for Girls, in one school one person filled both positions. This happened at the second school in 2002-2003. Until that time, there were one person filling each position with one period off and receiving the pay agreed upon under the collective bargaining agreement. Once the same person applied for and was hired for both the Girls’ and the Boys’ Athletic Director positions, the Board failed to pay the proper rate under contract. There was discussion back and forth between the Superintendent and Mr. Mellion. There was some additional correspondence going back and forth also.

Mr. Kimmel asked why one person could apply for both positions. Atty. Ferguson replied that he did not know. However, one person applied for both of the positions and was accepted by the BOE and hired. This resulted in the person doing both positions but only being paid for one, which is a good deal for the Board, but a violation of the NFT contract. Mr. Kimmel pointed out that this seemed to be an unusual circumstance and stated that he was surprised that nothing was written down regarding the compensation. Atty. Ferguson stated that the contract was clear on this point and that is why he and Mr. Mellion were present. Under the unambiguous, clear contract language, specifically in paragraph 13, each Athletic Director shall be compensated for the school year 1995-1996 at two times the current contract rate with three years experience as a Faculty Manager. Atty. Ferguson then clarified this and said that the fact that the BOE selected the same person to occupy both positions does not invalidate the obligation under the collective bargaining agreement to pay for both positions. The NFT has asked for this and the Superintendent has denied the grievance.

Ms. Rivas asked if she could have a copy of the contracts. Dr. Corda commented that her copy had given to him. Atty. Ferguson said that he had left a copy of the document at Ms. Rivas’s place. Dr. Corda repeated that Ms. Rivas’s copy had been given to him.

Mr. Kimmel said that if he was one person doing two jobs, the second thing would be that if the BOE agreed to this, they would have stipulated some kind of qualification or whatever it is called, to the contract. Mr. Kimmel said that Atty. Ferguson was implying that this never happened. Atty. Ferguson said that this was correct. Mr. Kimmel said that the person took the job expecting to be paid twice. Mr. Kimmel said that he could not believe that this was not discussed and that the person was not informed.

Atty. Ferguson pointed out that there were two people involved and this had not been addressed either time. He went on to reiterate that there were discussions between the union and the superintendent but nothing came of it.

Mr. Kimmel said that if he were to apply for two per session jobs, one in the morning shift and one in the evening shift, he would expect to receive pay for both the morning shift and the evening shift. He stated that he would not go into that situation without being certain that he would be paid for both. Atty. Ferguson said this was a fair point.

Mr. Vetter said that Atty. Ferguson was relying on contract language but kept referring to is the Letter of Agreement from 1996. Mr. Vetter pointed out that since 1996, the BOE has negotiated more contracts with the teachers. He then asked if there was any language other than in the 1996 Letter of Agreement that Atty. Ferguson would point to. Atty. Ferguson said there was not.

Ms. Rivas said that she did not have a copy of the document. Atty. Ferguson said that he had distributed eleven copies to the Board Members and apologized. Ms. Rivas said that if he had given her a copy, she would not be asking for one. Atty. Ferguson repeated that he had placed a copy of the documents at each chair. Dr. Corda said that he wished to clarify that this was his fault. When Dr. Corda entered the meeting, Mr. Burnett had handed him Ms. Rivas’ copies. Ms. Rivas said she was not upset. Dr. Corda repeated that Ms. Rivas’ copies had been given to him.

Atty. Ferguson repeated that the contract was clear and unambiguous regarding the fact that the employees are not getting the requisite release time nor the pay they are entitled to for performing the two positions. These two positions have never been combined and the Board has never made a proposal to combine them. This contract, which is before the Board, is a successor to the contract that was in effect in 1996 when the Letter of Agreement was signed. It is in effect from 2006-2010 and still indicated “Faculty Manager – Boys” and for “Faculty Manager – Girls” and as the Letter of Agreement states the “Faculty Manager” shall be changed to “Athletic Director”. Of course, there is the problem of secretarial support. These three things constitute the graviment of the NFT grievance.

Mr. Vetter asked if the schedule refers to Faculty Manager even though the title was changed. Atty. Ferguson agreed. Mr. Vetter then asked if there was anything in the contract that mentioned the Athletic Director. Atty. Ferguson referred back to the Letter of Agreement. Mr. Vetter then asked how long one person has been doing both jobs. Atty. Ferguson said that at Brien McMahon, the Athletic Director has been occupying the positions since 2001 and Norwalk High School since 2002-2003. Mr. Vetter then pointed out that the grievance was originally filed last December. Atty. Ferguson agreed.

Atty. Ferguson pointed out that an argument could be made that the grievance was untimely. He then pointed out that there is a rock solid, basic concept of labor law that is called a “continuing grievance”. If in fact, there is a violation of clear and unambiguous language and someone does not exercise their rights, either the management or the labor, this does not nullify the grievance. It basically continues on until a remedy finally agreed upon by the parties. So, every day that the BOE fails to pay the proper amount under the collective bargaining agreement for this position constitutes a new grievance. Obviously, the argument on this would be that the NFT would not have the right to claim retroactive money previous to the filing of the grievance. However, he stated that the NFT has the right to protect the clear, unambiguous language going forward.

Secondly, as previously stated, Mr. Mellion was in informal discussion with the Superintendent over this matter for almost five years. Mr. Polley commented that he has known Athletic Directors at all of these schools, more or less, and none of them are reluctant to speak up. He then asked why they did not speak up upon receiving the first paycheck that did not follow the pay schedule. Atty. Ferguson said that he believed that the Athletic Directors approached the union and the union was trying to work it out with the Superintendent. Mr. Polley then asked if for five years the Athletic Directors believed they were working for free for one of their positions. Atty. Ferguson agreed with this statement. Mr. Polley then asked why the Athletic Directors would continue to do this if they believed they were working for free. Atty. Ferguson said he had come to Norwalk around the time the grievance was originally filed and met with the Athletic Directors. He said that he informed them that after reviewing the contract that this was a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and they should file a grievance. He also said that regarding to secretarial issue, they might have an unfair labor practice. Atty. Ferguson said that he was unsure if the Athletic Directors have done that or not. Atty. Ferguson also informed the Board that the fact that the Athletic Directors had not exercised their rights earlier would undermine a claim for back pay prior to filing the agreement, regardless of any informal talks.

Mr. Burnett then asked Atty. Ferguson to review the timeline using Norwalk High School as an example. Atty. Ferguson said that when the Letter of Intent was signed between former Superintendent Sloan and Mr. Mellion on July 19, 1996, both high schools had girls and boys independent athletic directors. As of a posting in 2005 when Ray Barry retired, postings were made for a Girls’ Athletic Director and a Boys’ Athletic Director. The only person who applied for the positions was the person who currently holds the position. Mr. Madaffari at Brien McMahon was originally the Boys’ Athletic Director when the Girls’ Athletic Director retired; no one applied for that position. Mr. Madaffari applied and took on both positions, expecting to be paid for both. Mr. Burnett asked if anything was brought forward at that point. Atty. Ferguson said no.

Ms. Rivas apologized for coming in late and said that she was trying to get an understanding of what was being said. According to the Letter of Agreement, there is a statement that this Letter of Agreement shall be for a one year period on a trial basis, which shall reviewed no later than June 1, 1996. She then asked if there were any other review after that. Atty. Ferguson said that the Letter continues in effect until today. Ms. Rivas then asked why it specifies in the document that the agreement shall be in effect for a specific period and will be reviewed. Atty. Ferguson said that the NFT position is that all letters of agreement continue in effect unless superceded. Ms. Rivas asked if there was something in writing that this Letter of Agreement continues until someone decides it is not in effect. Atty. Ferguson said that this Letter of Agreement that the NFT is relying on and believes to be in effect. Ms. Rivas said that the NFT believes this Letter of Agreement does not have an expiration date. Atty. Ferguson agreed and went on to explain that either side in a collective bargaining agreement can propose different language. Ms. Rivas pointed out that Atty. Ferguson was referring to the Letter of Agreement as if it was a legal document that everyone was following. She said if so, the document should state a clear effective date and said that she did not see this in the document. She reiterated that Number 12 says that the Letter would be reviewed before June 1, 1996. Ms. Rivas then asked how the Board would know if the letter was reviewed according to the Letter. Atty. Ferguson said that they don’t know if it was reviewed, but the letter remains in effect. Ms. Rivas then asked who says it remains in effect and asked Atty. Ferguson to show her something that would state the letter was still in effect. Atty. Ferguson replied that he states that the letter was still in effect.

Ms. Rivas then asked who drew up the Letter of Agreement. Atty. Ferguson said that the letter was signed by Ralph Sloan, the Superintendent at the time and the Union President, Mr. Mellion. Atty. Ferguson then reviewed some of the details with Ms. Rivas regarding the agreement. She expressed surprise that no one filed a grievance earlier. Atty. Ferguson said that it is what it is and that the Union came to him for counsel, which he gave them.

Mr. Kimmel commented that he has seen in other school systems a tendency among the staff to not want to file an grievance, because when it happens in a school, it can have an effect on a school that is not necessarily positive. He then asked if that was true in Norwalk. Mr. Mellion then said that there has been a tremendous effort by the parties over various administrations and an inordinate amount of time trying to resolve matters. During the history of the NFTA, Mr. Mellion said that he thinks only five grievances have been filed. The last one was a substantial number of years ago. Mr. Mellion also pointed out that a tremendous amount of research and information gathering had been done regarding this issue including reviewing old salary records.

Mr. Polley asked Atty. Ferguson would speculate as to whether the staff members involved were really aware of the situation. He said he was trying to figure out how the Directors would keep on working if they were not getting paid for it. Atty. Ferguson said that based on paragraph 10, they did. He also commented that one of the Athletic Directors had commented the other day that they continue to meet all their responsibilities that have been sent their way. However, with the recent removal of benefits and secretarial support, they no longer can continue to do what they are being asked to do. They teach three or four periods a day without release time, not have the secretarial support, and do all the other tasks they are expected to do, including arranging transportation and coordinating interscholastic sports programs. Mr. Polley said that he was trying to figure out why the Athletic Directors continued on for such a long time. Atty. Ferguson said that he would not want to speculate on this. Ms. Rivas asked if there was a time frame under which a union member has to file a grievance. Atty. Ferguson said that there was a time frame, and then reviewed the details of “continuing grievance” situation with Ms. Rivas. He added that if there was a finite act, which happen one time and one time only, there is a period of something like 24 or 30 days according to the particular contract agreement.

Mr. Burnett asked if the Athletic Directors were evaluated on their performance at the end of each school year. Atty. Ferguson said that he would defer to the Superintend on that question. Dr. Corda replied that the practice has been that people continue in their positions unless circumstances arise that suggest they should not. Mr. Burnett said that he was questioning whether the Athletic Directors were annually being evaluated separately as being a Boys’ Athletic Director and a Girls’ Athletic Director, or simply as an Athletic Director. Mr. Burnett said he was wondering if in the Athletic Directors’ minds there was no separation of those roles. Atty. Ferguson referred back to the 2005 separate postings for both positions when Mr. Barry retired. Atty. Ferguson said that it was up to the Superintendent and the administration regarding how they evaluate staff. Pursuant to State Statute 10-51, all teachers are evaluated at the direction of the Superintendent.

Mr. Burnett asked if there was a listing of all the tasks that the Athletic Directors do as a Boys’ Athletic Directors and another listing for the Athletic Directors tasks to determine that the Athletic Directors are doing double the work. Atty. Ferguson pointed out that the Athletic Directors arrange transportation for both the boys and for the girls. Anything that is done for one must be done for the other. It may be the exact same number of students in certain sports, depending on the nature of the activity, but there are two substantial undertakings handling both programs. Both High Schools are fairly similar in their numbers of participants and new sports programs have been added.

Mr. Burnett asked if there was any information regarding the amount of overtime that the Athletic Directors put in performing these tasks. Atty. Ferguson said that the Athletic Directors are drowning because their normal day starts at 7 a.m. and often ends at 10 or 11 p.m., including weekends. Their schedule also runs almost 12 months. Losing the secretarial support changed the situation to “What are the Athletic Directors not going to do?”

Ms. Rivas then stated that there were two postings for the positions. She then wondered why someone would apply for two full time positions. Atty. Ferguson said that the positions were not full time. She then asked if the girls had to wait while the Athletic Director coached the boys. Atty. Ferguson said that Athletic Directors’ responsibilities are to oversee the program, not to coach. Their responsibilities includes equipment, scheduling, rain outs, transportation, accidents, grading academics, referees, ticket sales, and field conditions. Ms. Rivas asked whether the individual who took on both positions received two separate paychecks. Atty. Ferguson said that this was when the problem developed and reviewed the situation again. He contended that if the Letter of Agreement was not in effect any more as stated by Ms. Rivas then he would have to assume that the Athletic Directors do not have the same duties anymore because the reason they were shouldering all these responsibilities is because of the letter.

Mr. Polley asked whether there was another position at the various schools such as Subject Area Leader or Department Head that was responsible for coordinating the athletic program.

Mr. Kimmel asked if when the original postings were done, basically same person got both positions. Atty. Ferguson said that at Brien McMahon, Mr. Madaffari had the position of Boys’ Athletic Director. When the slot for the Girls Athletic Director opened up, no one applied, so Mr. Madaffari took on both positions, expecting to be paid for both. Mr. Barry had the same thing happen. When the current NHS Athletic Director applied for the jobs, that was actually the first time one person applied for both positions. The postings have always been done individually and have a worth was negotiated back in 1996 and have been update in each collective bargaining unit. The current bargaining unit had both parties negotiating this and the proposal was made that they should be merged into one salary agreement, which was signed by both the Board and the NFT. Mr. Kimmel said that he assumed that no one else applied for that position. Atty. Ferguson said that he did not know the answer to that question; it would have to answered by the Superintendent.

Dr. Corda said that it took almost fourteen months from the time Mr. Barry announced that he was retiring, working collectively to transfer someone from Brien McMahon to Norwalk High School. Moving a transfer from McMahon to Norwalk High raised concerns about the guidance load and other responsibilities.

Mr. Kimmel said that if there hasn’t been a grievance over the Girls’ Athletic Director as a single position. Atty. Ferguson said that it is an incredibly time consuming job. The job is literally 24 hours, 7 days a week. Mr. Kimmel said that he had seen Mr. Metafile directing traffic one night following some type of event with students milling about in uniform. Ms. Rivas reiterated that Atty. Ferguson kept referring to the Letter of Agreement, and in particular, Step 10, as a legal document. She said that what bothers her about the entire situation was Number 15. She then reread the wording regarding “a trial basis which shall be reviewed no later than June 1, 1996.” She said that if that particular statement was not included in the document, she would agree with Atty. Ferguson. However, this is an important part of the agreement, Ms. Rivas insisted. She said that she believed that there should be another Letter of Agreement on file that would not be on a trial basis.

Ms. Bishop-Pullan then closed the hearing at 7:45 p.m.

RECESS

Ms. Bishop-Pullan declared a recess at 7:45 p.m. The Board reconvened at 7:55 p.m.

IV. SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT BUDGET UPDATE

Dr. Corda reviewed the amount that the Common Council had approved for the BOE budget and expressed regret that the Council had not seen fit to raise the spending cap. Dr. Corda went on to say that he would be working on reconciling the budget with great care and attention.

Dr. Corda also mentioned that due to the current student enrollment at Nathan Hale, 6 & &7 can be combined into one team and still be within the prescribed student/teacher ratio. This is currently being done at Roton. He also said that a firm count will be made of the out of district students. These measures will be factored into the reconciliation. Dr. Corda said that he hoped to have the first draft of the reconciled budget ready for the Finance Committee in a week or so.

Dr. Corda went on to say that people rely on experts in every day life, such as hiring a plumber, or a lawyer in order to deal with a situation. However, this is not true in schools. Since everyone has been a student at one time or another, people feel that they know what is the best course of action. Part of the problem is in the public’s understanding. Most of the public does not realize that teachers are continually engaged in learning more. One of the current challenges is in reconciling the budget so that it will have a minimum impact. In the past, the District has made decisions that have greatly increased the progress and improved the infrastructure.

Dr. Corda said that he had read a number of the commentaries, letters and blog entries regarding the District, the staff and the BOE. There is a strong streak of vindictiveness appearing along with attacks on individuals. A person may not agree with someone else’s position, but this is not justification for launching personal attacks. This type of behavior hurts people’s reputation and is uncalled for. Dr. Corda concluded by saying that it was time for people to step back from the fray and evaluate.

V. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ms. Murray announced that no one had signed up to address the Board. She then asked twice if there was any member of the public present who wished to address the Board. Hearing none, the Board moved on to the next agenda item.

VI. ACTIONS

A. Consent

1. Approval of personnel actions 2. Approval of budget transfers 3. Approval of Field Trip

** MR. VETTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS FOLLOWS:

1. APPROVAL OF PERSONNEL ACTIONS 2. APPROVAL OF BUDGET TRANSFERS 3. APPROVAL OF FIELD TRIP

Mr. Kimmel said that he would prefer that the items be presented individually rather than in a group because he intended to abstain on two of the items. This was agreeable to the Board. ** MS. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE PERSONNEL ACTIONS. ** MR. VETTER SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

** MR. VETTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET TRANSFERS. ** MS. HAMILTON SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED WITH EIGHT IN FAVOR (BISHOP-PULLAN, VETTER, RIVAS, BURNETT, HAMILTON, MURRAY, FULLER, AND POLLEY) AND ONE ABSTENTION (KIMMEL).

** MR. POLLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE FIELD TRIPS. ** MR. FULLER SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED WITH EIGHT IN FAVOR (BISHOP-PULLAN, VETTER, RIVAS, BURNETT, HAMILTON, MURRAY, FULLER, AND POLLEY) AND ONE OPPOSED (KIMMEL).

B. Approval of minutes (November 6, 2006 & April 4, 2007)

November 6, 2006

** MS. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2006 REGULAR MEETING AS SUBMITTED. ** MR. POLLEY SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED WITH SEVEN IN FAVOR (BISHOP-PULLAN, VETTER, RIVAS, BURNETT, MURRAY, FULLER, AND POLLEY) AND TWO ABSTENTION (HAMILTON & KIMMEL).

April 4, 2006

The following corrections were noted:

Page 1, UNDER ATTENDANCE: please remove Ms. Murray from the listing. Page 1, first sentence under “Spotlight on the Norwalk Public Schools”: please change from “Ms. Murray presented the Spotlight” to “Ms. Hamilton presented the Spotlight”

Page 3, paragraph 1, line two: please change “the Mayor mentioned, the Board of Education would be left” to “the Mayor mentioned, the City of Norwalk would be left”

** MS. RIVAS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2006 AS CORRECTED. ** MR. VETTER SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED WITH SEVEN IN FAVOR (BISHOP-PULLAN, VETTER, RIVAS, FULLER, KIMMEL, HAMILTON AND POLLEY) AND TWO ABSTENTION (MURRAY & BURNETT).

VII. INFORMATION AND REPORTS

A. Class Size Report

Dr. Corda briefly reviewed the class size information, which had been distributed in an earlier information packet with the Board.

Category: Minutes