Menu Content/Inhalt
Home
Class Sizes and Teacher's Utilization
Written by Administrator   

 Spreadsheet developed using the information provided by Dr. Palmer to gain a better understanding of class sizes, courses offered, staff utilization, teacher's educational steps & salaries (used 2009-2010 salaries)

pdf file Click here to view the spread sheet

Questions:

  1. Salary levels seem high. Were HS teachers hired at generally higher salary levels than for K-8?
  2. Why are all except one Dept. Heads teaching only 4 classes?
  3. Do the Dept. Heads get extra dollars for their position?
  4. Do the Dept. Heads have there own contract or do they fall under the teacher's contracts?
  5. Why are there so many class sizes under 20 students? I see more than 60% of classes below 20!
  6. What courses are required by the state? How many years needed? How many credits?
  7. How many credits do students need per year? To graduate?
  8. SPED teacher count looks like 4. Are classes offered under them state required?
  9. Are the SPED salaries and programs reimbursed by State? Fed?
  10. Data reveals BOE/Superintendent loaded HS teachers less heavily than K-8. Why?
  11. Why was such a light load and such high salaries used to formulate the HS operations?
  12. Did BOE/Superintendent try to save money hiring teachers at a lower step? What happened?
  13. Does the BOE plan to hire OR re-assign teachers from the lower level grades to support the HS?
  14. The info seems to demonstrate there are sufficient teachers at the High School. Your thoughts?
  15. Why was it planned to impact K-8 students with increases in their classroom sizes?
  16. Can BOE/Superintendent offer some teachers a salary differential to teach an extra class?
  17. Will this be considered?
  18. Has BOE/Superintendent looked into dual certification that some of these teachers may hold?
  19. Can teachers take on other subjects, if they are certified, to teach at same pay or extra pay?

There are cost effective opportunities here. I hope the BOE will use some of these suggestions.
 
BOF Conflict Ruling
Written by Administrator   

Decision On Requested Opinion re Board Finance Conflict

In a nutshell:

  • The motion to appropriate the $497,000 stands as tied and the motion failed.
  • The discussion after the vote with Jerry Schwab and Att. Houston and the BOF should have never happened.
  • BOF Chairman Jim Murphy was wrong to disqualify two votes.
  • The only recourse is to make a motion to "Renew" or "Motion to Rescind" the previously failed motion.
  • Jerry Schwab and Att. Houston are not members of the Board of Finance therefore have no say at the board concerning issues that are BOF related unless invited to give information to the Board pertaining to an issue.
  • Our First Selectman wasted tax dollars in persuing this opinion.

Decision on "Requested Opinion re Board of Finance Conflict"

From Sheehy & Dillon

Attorneys At Law

Ansonia, CT

 Dear Fisrt Selectman Drayto-Rogers

You have requested me to render a decision regarding the vote taken on the appropriation of $497,000.00 from the General Fund Surplus for the Board of Education for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year at the Regular Meeting of the Board of Finance on February 23, 2009.  The issues are as follows:

  1. ISSUE
Whether the vote recored on the motion to appropriate the $497,000.00 failed by a vote of three (3) yes and three (3) no votes?
ANSWER:
The vote stands as tied, three (3) yes and three (3) no votes, the motion fails and the appropriation is not approved.
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
Town Charter, Oxford, Connecticut, Revised 2006; Section 148h Connecticut General Statutes; Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised 10th Ed.; Connecticut Case Law.
EXPLANATION:
The Town Charter creates a Board of Finance of six (6) members elected by the voters of the Town of Oxford, Sec. 6-2, Oxford Town Charter.  The charter establishes that four (4) members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and that a simple majority of members present but not less then three (3) affirmative votes shall be needed to transact business.
At the February 23, 2009, Regular Meeting of the Board of Finance all six (6) members of the Board are recorded as present.  Under Old Business, Chairman Jim Murphy moved to approve the appropriation and Nancy Schmitt seconded the motion.  Thereafter, the motion was discussed by the Board and Superintendent, Judy Palmer, Attorney Donald Houston and Jerry Schwab at the invitation of the Board.
At 9:15 p.m. the Board voted as follows on the motion "Ayes (Lyon, Schmitt, Murphy(, Nays (Burke,Kelly, Furillo).  Motion failed 3-3."  Pursuant to Sec. 6-2 (B) Oxford Town Charter the motion fails for lack of a mojority vote.  See Also, Williams v. Brace, 5 Conn. 190 (1824); McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 3rd Ed. Vol. 4 Sec. 13.27, p. 872.
Once the motion has been voted on no further discussion may be had on the vote, unless a "Motion to Reconsider" is made and seconded by the Board.  Sec. 37, Robers's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Ed.
Therefore, the vote stands as tied and the motion fails.
 2. ISSUE:
Whether an alleged conflict of interest after a vote is taken does not render a member of the Board's vote void or invalid.
 
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
 
As previously stated the Town Charter creates a Board of Finance of six (6) members elected by the voters of the Town of Oxford, Sec. 6-2, Oxford Town Charter.  It is inferent in the elective office that the official has the right to vote on matters before the body on which he or she sits.  Neither the Charter nor State Statute authorizes a Chairman or presiding officer to negate a duly cast vote by a qualified member of a governmental body.
 
Once discussion has concluded on a motion and it is put to a vote, no further disccusion is allowed after the vote is recorded, unless an immediate "Motion for Reconsideration" is made by a member of the prevailing side.  Sec. 37, Rober's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Ed.  The discussion after the vote  on the motion (pages 19through 21 of the minutes) is inappropriate.
 
Anyone who raises a point of order such as disqualification to vote myst do so before the vote.  It is then in the good judgement of the person on the board to decide if the potential conflict of interest is of such a level as to require that person to recuse himself or herself and step down from the meeting and the motion in question.  The comments by the Board of Education representatives as to how the vote was to be recored is inappropriate and of no effect.  The vote remains tied and the motion fails.  There is no authority for a chairman to void or disallow a vote by an elected member of a board.  Furthermore, even assuming that the member has a conflict, he or she cannot be compelled to refrain from voting. See Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Ed., p. 394.
 
The Town of Oxford, Code of Ethics, Sec. 5 defines conflickts of interest for puplic officials.  A member of the board must determine, pursuant to Sec. 5, Code of Ethics, in his or her good judgment, prior to vote on a motion, whether their action could constitute a violation of the code.  In the present case, the officials in question were voting on an appropriation.  After the vote, the officials relationship to a teacher and a member of the Board of Education were questioned.  Thos Board members do not have the power of the Board of Education to collectively bargain with teachers' unions and to set salaries.  Whether a particular interest justifies disqualification is necessarily a factual question, for not every interest, no matter how remote and infinitesial, may be said to possess the likely capacity to tempt the public official to depart from sworn duty.  Dana-Robin Corp. v. Common Council, 166 Conn. 207 (1974) .
 
SUMMARY
 
Prior to a vote on a motion, a member of a board should disclose any information required by the Code of Ethics and make a determination whether to vote on the matter of step down and recuse themselves from participating in the discussion of the motion and the vote.  If someone disagrees with the officials decision to participate in the vote, that person may bring a complaint un the Code of Ethics.
 
The Board of Finance voted on the appropriation motion with three(3) Ayes and three(3) Nays resulting in a tie and the motion fails.  The Board of Finance may at a subsequent meeting make a "Motion to Rescind" action at a previous meeting (See, Sec. 35, Rober's Rules of Order, Newly Rivised, 10th Ed.) or make a "Motion to Renew" a previously failed motion. (See Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revise, 10th Ed.).
 
If such action is taken, then the board members in question must determine whether their relationship to employees and members of the Board of Education constitutes a conflict of interest uner the Oxford Code of Ethics requiring them to step down and recuse themselves from voting on the motion.
 
 
Who Cares About Me Using the OX 1 On Saturday To Get My Nails Done?
Written by Administrator   

Questions at the November Oxford Board of Finance meeting that where left unanswered show the distain that our First Selectwoman has for the citizens of Oxford and her own party.
 
One question left unanswered was asked by a Democratic member of the Board of Finance. That question was. Who on the Saturday past was using the Oxford vehicle to get their nails done at the Nails Plus Boutique in Tommy Kays plaza? The Democrat member asked the question a second and a third time and still the First Selectwoman refused to answer. He continued, he had seen the car parked in the plaza. Who was using the vehicle, the Towns gas, the Towns insurance? He wanted to know who had use of that vehicle on that day. The Questioner and the public (who pays the bills) did not receive an answer.
 
The reason that an answer was not forth coming is because this is the vehicle that the First Selectwoman uses. If this is the vehicle that the First Selectwoman uses, was someone using the vehicle without her knowledge? If not then it was the First Selectwoman who had the vehicle and she was getting her nails done at the Town of Oxfords expense.
 
Someone once said absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen this administration abuse their power, fail to keep campaign promises, and to continue to take credit for projects that they had little of nothing to do with.
 
More...