There should be no free ride at Region One

The following is edited from the statement read and submitted to the Region One Board of Education at a special meeting March 24, 2011: I voted no to pay raises and contract extensions for the Region One superintendent and assistant superintendent because these top administrators — whose combined salaries and benefits of almost $300,000 represent close to 2 percent of the regional budget — should be held accountable for their share of responsibility for the recent major eruptions and resulting disharmony at our high school. That the recommendation for contract extensions and raises came from the All Boards Chairs Committee at a time when Connecticut taxpayers are being promised even more stringent state budget cuts and higher taxes over the next few years shows a lack of knowledge and application of sound management practices.Management, in this case the board, should have the opportunity to evaluate an employee annually and reward or not reward that employee’s job performance. These two employees will have a free ride in terms of job evaluations for three years if taxpayers in the region approve the budget at the referendum in May. By moving the superintendent’s contract termination date from June 2013 to June 2014 and the assistant superintendent’s contract termination date from June 2012 to June 2014, the board will have abdicated its proper role by making job performance evaluations a moot point. If the board were to find it was in the best interest of Region One to sever the work relationship with either the superintendent or the assistant superintendent while a contract is still in effect, it would cost the taxpayers at least $200,000 to move that employee out. It is irresponsible and arrogant on the part of the board to potentially place that kind of burden on the taxpayers who have so generously supported our high school.The Pingpank Report found the Regional Schools Services Center — which some people call the central office — was involved in intimidation, retaliation, polarization and perceived or actual conflict of interest, creating an unhealthy climate for both students and employees. The report was highly critical of the conduct of the assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendent’s behaviors took place under the superintendent’s watch, and the superintendent knew or should have known what was happening, because she was warned about it as long ago as March 2010. From this information alone — without even addressing the issue of student achievement and the fact that last year the percentage of students who met state goals on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test were 61.3 percent in math, 51.5 percent in reading, 46.6 percent in science and 64.8 percent in writing — it seems clear that neither the superintendent nor the assistant superintendent have earned pay raises and contract extensions. The proper course of action would be to put the assistant superintendent on probation. The board should direct the superintendent to counsel the assistant superintendent to moderate her behavior as was recommended in the Pingpank Report. The assistant superintendent’s contract expiration date should remain at June 30, 2012, at which time she will hopefully have modified her behavior enough to be an effective administrator in Region One. If she has not done so, the board should have the ability to terminate her employment and not be dealing with a contract that expires two years later. The board should set annual goals and objectives for and with the superintendent, including some that actually address the recommendations for improving the school climate that were detailed in the $9,000 taxpayer-funded Pingpank Report, and should measure the superintendent’s job performance against these goals and objectives. If the superintendent has not been able to meet those goals and objectives and improve conditions at the school, the board should be able to terminate her contract at the end of June 2013 and not burden the taxpayers with a contract that expires a year later. The board members who voted yes for these pay raises and contract extensions — the representatives from Sharon, North Canaan and Kent (Cornwall abstained) — voted that the academic performance of our students and the disharmony that exists within our high school and the Regional Schools Services Center are acceptable and don’t need to be improved. That what we have is good enough and we don’t need to strive for excellence. Instead, they could have sent a message to our administrators that the students, faculty, staff and taxpayers deserve better. They could have said when the time comes that the top administrators lead the way to better education for our students and a better environment for our faculty and staff, then they could be amply rewarded. But that time is not now.Gale Toensing is the Falls Village representative to the Region One Board of Education.