The Superintendent Defends

Response to the First Selectman’s May 9, 2011 Statement

It is unfortunate that the First Selectman has integrated misleading information into a press release on the yet to be resolved town takeover of the board of Education’s (BOE) insurance account increase, which is in direct conflict with Connecticut General Statutes. Despite several ignored attempts to avoid what is considered an illegal act, the first selectman and Town Council removed the monies from the board account. During my board’s concentrated efforts, it was pointed out that noted Connecticut Educational Attorney Thomas Mooney, Connecticut Boards of Education (CABE) Legal Counsel Patrice McCarthy and the Connecticut State Department of Education’s Office of Legal Affairs all reinforced that the town’s actions were inconsistent with Connecticut state statutes and characterized this as an attempt to usurp the Board of Education’s statutory authority.

The Board of Education would agree with the first selectman that the reductions they were forced to enact were deep, comprehensive and would adversely affect children; however, the reader should not lose sight of the fact these substantial cuts were necessitated by a reduced amount of monies provided to the board by the First Selectman and Town Council—the board’s request was reduced by almost $2.6 million dollars, and possibly $3.6 million dollars, if the insurance takeover is not resolved. Also, the board strived to keep its academic programs intact and reduce ancillary areas when necessary. Simply stated, there was not enough money to continue to provide the Pre-K – 12 students with the same comprehensive and diversified programs and educational opportunities to meet the various needs of almost 7,000 students.

The board is well aware of the importance of all programs, including athletics, TAG, and the many support programs that were impacted. They anguished and struggled with their decision but did so in a professional and steadfast manner that fulfilled its statutory responsibility to provide for the educational interests that will best serve the district. This BOE was guided by the principles of accountability, transparency, and creditability in reviewing the numerous facets of this complex budget process that began in September 2010. One should know that the board became well informed and knowledgeable about those items that came under their discussion.

One also should know that in finalizing the budget, the board listened with sensitivity to many individuals and considered the input of each group in its educational community. The great deal of time expended, numerous discussions, and related follow-up and analysis proved invaluable, with many of these suggestions integrated into their final decision.

During the last 18 months, the first selectman has suggested several methods that would reduce the BOE operating expenses without affecting children’s programs. However, almost all of these suggestions previously were explored and investigated and deemed not to be feasible, particularly financially. Nevertheless, the board remains open and receptive to such savings.

For example, the first selectman recommended pooling employee health insurance and that there will be significant savings. It must be pointed out that following its bid selection of a new health insurance vendor, Anthem, the same provider as the town, our insurance representative emphasized they already have considered both the board/town plans to be under one umbrella and gave, and will give, the town $40,000 each year (of a two year contract that began July 1, 2010) and the Board of Education $5,000 for this joint account. In addition, our insurance representative conveyed in writing that a similar merge between the two groups would cost each [side] more money than current rates. And it is even more surprising considering that when the BOE asked the town if they wanted to join them in the RFP for a new insurance provider, the town declined.

Another example provided by the first selectman was the proposed consolidation of our facilities management to reduce duplication and produce savings. The board agrees with this proposal but it is not new. What has not been shared was that approximately 10 years ago, the board and town already had come very close to agreeing to such a swap by the respective bargaining units on each side. The board would assume custodial responsibilities for the town’s buildings; and the town would acquire our six outside maintenance workers. At the last minute, the bargaining units declined to move forward; however, at that time, it was determined that financial savings would be minimal, if any but there would be productivity savings on each side, as well as better care and upkeep of the facilities.

Related to health insurance, it should be noted that the board’s annual rates increased by nine percent for each of the last two years while the town’s increased by 20 percent and zero percent for the same time period. In addition, it is a little known fact that the town’s premiums are approximately 23% higher than the board’s premiums.

One keeps hearing about the town saving hundreds of thousands of dollars with joint programs, but never any specific areas or amounts. It should be emphasized that the board already has saved significant amounts of monies, particularly in insurance, and that can be factually reinforced by a survey of Fairfield County towns showing the Trumbull BOE insurance costs were among the lowest in the area.

As to the statement that Trumbull students “should not be treated as casualties to a budget impasse that holds them hostage each year” is highly in appropriate and inaccurate, as the board, throughout the budget process, provided the community with key areas that would be impacted if town funding were decreased from the board’s adopted request. The first selectman, board of Finance and Town Council also were provided with these areas to be reduced. In addition, several hundred people spoke in favor of additional funding, and many more sent emails urging monies be reinstated. Unfortunately, their efforts were not successful.

Finally, the first selectman asserts that it is virtually impossible to produce a fiscally responsible budget in this difficult economy while still providing our children with the same programs they have become accustomed to and certainly deserve. We disagree with the first selectman that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive, particularly given the magnitude of the $2.6 million reduction, and, as simply stated, there is not enough money to deliver the programs and offerings without additional funds.

The board is appreciative and hopeful that this last proposal in the first selectman’s numerous attempts to rectify the inappropriate action of the town will be successful; as conveyed to him on several occasions, his plan will have to be reviewed by Board Counsel Attorney Thomas Mooney to determine Connecticut state statutes are followed and the town’s intrusion into the board’s budget monies is reconciled. That approval should have occurred prior to any press release stating this issue is resolved.

The board and the superintendent sincerely hope this matter can be resolved without litigation to protect its rights and responsibilities and to ensure the students of Trumbull have additional funds necessary to receive the best educational programs possible. This point is the sole issue and should not be confused with political gamesmanship.