Markeshia Ricks Photo
Dawson (at left in photo): We need help.
New Haven’s endlessly squabbling Board of Education agreed to attend marriage counseling Monday — then ended up in a bickering match, including a round of shouting with the city’s corporation counsel.
Board members met at schools headquarters at 54 Meadow St. with an eye toward learning how they can work better together, and with Superintendent Garth Harries and his staff, and how to bring order to acrimonious regular public meetings that drag on for five hours.
With the help of Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) counsel Patrice McCarthy, they talked through how to efficiently run their full board meetings — asking their mediator to weigh in on past decisions and debates. She had some suggestions.
Before McCarthy even arrived, the board got into an argument that had one member in tears and another shouting with the lawyer. (To hear what the argument sounded like, click on the audio file at the bottom of this story.) The argument — symbolic of others that have dominated portions of recent board meetings — revolved around whether the retreat’s agenda had been properly noticed within the required 24 hours and whether the agenda should include upcoming personnel recommendations.
Board member Darnell Goldson berated Superintendent Harries for not sending notice of the agenda until last Friday at 6 p.m.
“Could you please, please, please tell us why we didn’t get it until six o’clock?” he demanded.
“The first time I sat down at a computer, I forwarded it to you…” Harries said.
“Five hours after it was sent to the town clerk?” Goldson asked incredulously. “Why did it take you five days to send out a notice to the Clerk’s Office and five hours after you claim you sent the notice to the clerk’s office to send it to us?”
“The reason…” Harries began.
“Just say ‘bad planning,’ and we’re good,” Goldson interjected.
He and board members Alicia Caraballo and Ed Joyner — who have been consistently critical of both Harries’ performance of superintendent and his handling of information for the board — also expressed disappointment that the agenda included last-minute discussion on personnel matters. A procedural dispute prevented the board last week from approving two proposed new top hires for the coming academic year; one of the proposed hires, Karen Lott, has since withdrawn her name from consideration for the position of chief academic officer.
“When I got this at six o’clock I was surprised by it and quite frankly a little bit perturbed because it looked like an end run around the rules,” Goldson said of Harries’ retreat agenda. He said that board members had a “gentleman’s agreement” to not have any special meetings between meetings that would cause any to miss opportunities to vote. “That agreement was broken when this item was added to the agenda,” Goldson said of the personnel appointments.
Mayor Toni Harp, president of the board, took responsibility for that move. At last Monday’s full board meeting, board members refused to consider the two candidates for administrative positions in central office, because they said they hadn’t had enough time to consider them.
Caraballo said it would be most useful to discuss school-level positions, not central-office positions, at Monday’s retreat — if personnel matters were to be included on the agenda at all.
“We wanted to make sure that schools have principals. Why are we not voting on that? Why are we not voting on the principal of Martinez, or the principal of Barnard, or the principal of adult ed?” she said.
Harp: “Let him make his point. Then you can make yours.”
Non-voting student board member Coral Ortiz urged her colleagues to stop bickering. “Right now, I don’t feel like we’re being productive,” she said.
But they continued — to the point of a shouting match between Goldson and city Corporation Counsel John Rose about noticing the agenda.
That prompted Ortiz to leave the room with what appeared to be tears in her eyes. Board member Che Dawson went to check on her.
Meanwhile, the adults continued arguing.
“I will agree that it is poor planning that it didn’t get posted until 1:18 p.m.,” Harries said.
“It got posted at 2:33,” Goldson said pointedly.
“With the one point on the sending to the board, was that was a gesture that had come from me so that you all knew what was on the agenda in an email,” Harries added.
“Yeah, at six o’clock at night,“Goldson said.
“Honestly, all this back and forth — either we have a meeting or we don’t,” Mayor Toni Harp said.
“We don’t,” Goldson said.
“Let’s hear what corp counsel has to say,” Harp said.
“The notice of the meeting was sent to the Town Clerk’s office at 1:18 p.m.” on Friday, Rose said. And then was promptly interrupted. “Let me finish OK? … Let’s assume there was a fire drill at City Hall and everybody was out on the street until 1:45.”
“You can’t assume that,” Joyner said.
“I’m not accepting your assumptions,” Goldson said.
“You can’t assume anything,” Rose said, raising his voice. “The fact is…”
“Well, you said let’s assume — you’re assuming,” Joyner pointed out.
“Let me just finish what I have to say,” Rose said.
“Can you let him make his point? And then you can make yours,” Harp interjected.
“I’m a board member,” Joyner said. “I didn’t even ask him to do this …”
“Excuse me, my understanding is that your notice, whatever you’ve got there is the case that the Town Clerk posted the notice after 1:30. Is that true?” Rose asked Goldson.
“Two thirty-three,” Goldson said.
“That’s why we have the assumption I made,” Rose said. “Let’s assume there was a fire drill at City Hall at 1:40 the fact is you’ve got to find out when it was sent! If it was sent at 1:18, that’s not 1:30!”
“I don’t know that,” Goldson said.
“We have it in writing!!” Rose shouted. “Do you think I’m making it up?!”
“What I’m saying to you is that document has not been authenticated,” Goldson said. “I don’t know who it came from, what it came from. I have seen email dates and timed changed. I know that for a fact. So, you’re not going to give it to me as a fact. What I have here was time stamped from the clerk’s office.”
“I’m ready to just let it go,” Harp said. “We don’t have a meeting. Let’s just wait for the person who is going to do the retreat.”
Therapist Weighs In
Ortiz: Stop bickering!
McCarthy did arrive and conduct the retreat. She fielded hours of questions from board members checking if their own actions and those of their peers at full board members were appropriate or legal.
Since the new elected members Goldson and Joyner joined in January, they have been making motions to require the superintendent to take immediate action on matters including regularly reporting and filling teacher vacancies.
Mayor Harp asked whether it was appropriate to use the agenda item “new business” as a way to bind the board or superintendent to specific actions.
No, McCarthy said. “New business” allows members to talk about relevant items not on the agenda, with the intention of taking action at a later meeting, she said.
They also checked in about how to regulate public comments, which can take up an hour of the five-hour meetings. “People are saying the meetings are too long, but they talk for 10 minutes,” Goldson said. He said board members should expect to stay longer if they don’t limit public comment.
“You are not a public forum,” McCarthy said. “Your priority has to be to conduct the meeting of the board.” She suggested they allow for more special public forums, to give people unlimited time to talk about “hot community button” issues.
“What if they don’t stop talking?” board member Dawson asked.
McCarthy said some boards have had police remove people. “I don’t recommend that.” She said it didn’t sound “healthy for anyone” that meetings are now regularly lasting five hours or more.
Dawson asked McCarthy to “diagnose” the board. “This is a great sample of what happens on most Monday nights.” No one at the meeting has “boundaries,” including board members and the public. No one trusts each other, he said.
Rx: “Culture” Shift Needed
Harries (center), Caraballo (right).
McCarthy’s diagnosis: Everyone at the meeting is an “impassioned advocate for the children in New Haven.” But the board needs a shift in the “culture and expectations” set for members. There’s no need for members to repeat themselves multiple times, or to comment on issues outside of the allotted time in the agenda.
What happens if a board member disagrees with the superintendent? Dawson asked — labeling that the crux of the debates.
McCarthy said board members should differentiate between disagreements on issues within their purview and those within the purview of the superintendent. If they disagree on how the superintendent is doing his job, they should bring it up in his evaluation, not at board meetings. If they disagree on how he is carrying out actions they are expected to oversee, they should take a vote, she said.
McCarthy gave board members several tips for how to move forward constructively:
• Set goals for the board, focusing on three each year.
• Revise the 30-year-old set of bylaws, deciding which parts to keep and which to change.
• Help people understand that the public comment session has limitations, and may not be available each meeting.
• Figure out how to set board agendas, deciding what items to include to ensure the meetings go smoothly.
• Build the board and superintendent’s trust in each other, using self-evaluations and a joint vision statement.
Click below to hear the audio of the argument between board members and Corporation Counsel Rose.