Letter to the Editor Salafia: 'Amazed at Sodexo Contract Renewal'

Dear Insider,

I am amazed that BOE approved the renewal of the Sodexo contract even though it has been shown that they have not in reality saved the district money according to an independent audit.  The amount that would be saved by not using Sodexo could have funded about 5 teaching positions. 

The relationship between the 466 union employees and the BOE administration had been on the mend since the Frechette/Senges/Haynes days and is now again on the decline. Remember these are the employees actually working in the schools, they see first hand what is gong on.

According to the Middletown Press article, some of the BOE members expressed opinions that they were in favor of the job the Sodexo was doing with capital projects.  The Press article states that if some of these capital projects have been "overdue by a decade".   Why?? The capital projects are under the purview of the Common Council and not the BOE.  If the Democratic majority on the BOE is not getting the support from the Democratic majority on the Common Council for capital projects then there is a serious problem. Remember that these majorities have existed for years. 

In my opinion, this contract renewal was the wrong way to go; with so much pointing to the flaws / problem in the contract, it would have been better to have voted it down.

http://www.middletownpress.com/social-affairs/20150610/middletown-boe-renews-sodexo-contract-despite-concerns

Sincerely,

Linda Salafia

BOE Boogey: A Brief Summary of the Meeting

Brief summary of last night's Board of Education regular meeting.

 There was a presentation regarding reducing the number of special education students who are out placed. The gentlemen said that the average across the state is 5% whereas in Middletown the average number of special education students of the total special education population is 12%.  There was discussion of goals; the BOE would to send a consistent message throughout the system with a unified set of goals in 4 key areas.  These goals will appear in every classroom, the website and correspondence and presented at the teacher orientation in August.  

An item on the agenda caused a bit of discussion and that was the Memorandum of Understanding between the BOE/City and the Teamsters' Union.  There was confusion about how this MOU came about with Dt. Nocera first saying it was a result of the global settlement agreement between the City and the Teamsters; however, Dr. Charles did correct that and say it was result of negotiations with the Teamsters regarding their loss of a position by the outsourcing of the cafeteria services.  Dr. Charles stated that this MOU which basically trades the Director of Transportation position for the Manager of Food Services position (the Director of Transportation position has been vacant for several years and the previous administration had claimed that it was no longer necessary with the duties given to the Director of Facilities.  The Director of Facilities has retired and the duties now are being handled by BOE Administrators).  The thought is that by hiring a new director it will free up the administrators to do more education related duties.Board members Ryan Kennedy and Ted Razcka both disagreed with this saying that now was not the time to hire another person at that level of pay, may be with benefits 6 figures, when they are laying off teachers.  Kennedy expressed concern that the contract with the outside company for cafe services may not work out and be terminated in a year or so but once you hire a director you'll have them conceivably for 25 years or so.  The Administrators now handling the transportation duties stated that it was no longer working well, they were being taken from truly educational duties; that by dividing the duties all over the place was not a good plan, not a safe plan.  BOE member Sheila Daniels stated that being able to go forward with the hiring of the outside company for cafe services would enable them to hire a company with nutritional background so that now the children with have " healthy" meals.

At the end of the meeting, Board member Ed McKeon made a statement directed to the Common Council members regarding the upcoming vote on the city's budget.  He stated that no one can call themselves a supporter of education if they make those kinds of cuts that he is hearing.  He said that the BOE has worked diligently to get out of the hole; worked hard to give the city has asked for.  Even though they had done what was asked of them they don't seem to be getting anything from the other side.  He stated that we are on the brink of very hard times.  Layoff could be as many as 25 or 30; these are not scare tactics but the budget proposed by the BOE was cut to the bone already.  He felt that it would be unconscionable and unfair it the BOE funding is cut.

After that, the meeting was to move onto communications but it appeared that the recording got stuck and meeting must have ended soon after.

Your Daily Spin by the Middletown Mess:When the Numbers Don't Add Up

Daily Spin: Response to City & BOE Consolidation of Legal Services

http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2013/01/19/news/doc50f9defb8c1b4595879930.txt

There has been an article in some of the news outlets regarding a memorandum of understanding between the City and the BOE regarding the BOE using the City's legal staff rather than hire outside attorneys.

The article stated that the administration wanted to go back to pre-2008 staffing levels.  For this year, 2012, the City is increasing it's current staffing levels from an Acting City Attorney, vacant Deputy City Attorney position and a secretary to a City Attorney (already hired), two Deputy City Attorneys (one already hired and one scheduled to be hired in the spring) plus the secretary.  The Risk Manager's part of the department currently has three full time employees.  This is leading us to believe that the City previously had

that level of staffing.  However, in the approved budget for the year ending 6/30/2009, there was a City Attorney, one Deputy City Attorney and a Legal Secretary as had been budgeted for the year ending

6/30/2008.  A second Deputy City Attorney was requested but not funded.  At one time, for a short time, the office was staffed with a paralegal who first started as a part-time employee and then becamefulltime; after that employee received her law license, she was appointed as an additional Deputy City Attorney.  She subsequently left the City for other employment.  Should be noted that this former employee was one of the original applicants for the City Attorney position and not chosen.  The article is misleading in that except for a short period of time, the office has only had ONE Deputy City Attorney.

Also, the article claimed that the City has been able to settle some 30 some odd pieces of litigation stating further that numerous grievances and suits were settled by working with the Mayor, BOE and the union.  It should be noted however that the majority of the "30" legal issues were union grievances that did not necessarily require legal representation on the part of the City or the BOE.  These were grievances filed the employee through the union and were to be heard by a panel at the state labor board; the fee to do so is approximately $25.00 per party and did not necessarily rise to the level of requiring the attendance of an attorney at several hundreds of dollars per hour.  As part of the agreement the BOE insisted on keeping the illegal hire , Councilwoman Hope Kasper's son inlaw, whom she had a direct hand in hiring. Hmm. The hearing of grievances by the Labor Board is a matter of stating the facts and the specific part of the union contract violated to the panel and then waiting for their response; sometimes, the panel will request that the positons of both sides be submitted in writing

but generally it's straightforward: how did the employer violate the contract??  BTW, there is still a grievance out there to be heard and also an outstanding law suit not settled as of yet.

According to the paperwork handed out by the BOE at the workshop regarding their budget for object code 392 Legal Services for 2011-2012 the actual expenditure was $147,177.48; $100,000 was

appropriated bor the 2012-2013 budget and for the 2013-2014 budget $154,220 is being requested, an additional $54,220.00 over the current budgeted amount.  In the overall budget for the BOE, $147,177 doesn't seem extreme but it should be noted that much of what was paid for the outside attorneys for services rendered for the issues between the BOE and the City were paid for from the City's Insurance and Claims Fund and not the above referenced object code in the BOE's budget.  Monies in the Insurance and Claims Fund are reserved generally for payment for pending claims and suits against the City plus claims resulting from storms etc. and deductibles, and should the fund be insufficient after the payment of funds not planned for, an appropriation from the General Fund will be necessary to meet those obligations when and if

they arise.  If the BOE is expecting to have to pay less for legal expenses, one would assume that we will see the request for $154,220 be reduced.  Right??

Letter the Editor: Government ReOrg Costly In Many Ways

Letter to the Editor from Councilwoman Linda Salafia

Letters to the editor are published as courtesy and not necessarily reflect the opinions of Insider Staff.  Government ReOrg report his here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/mayors-task-force-on-efficiency-report.html

I voted against the incentive plan offered to the Teamsters and the non-bargaining directors because I feel that it's not a good move for the City.  However, I also believe that  the employees that opted to retire should not be blamed or faulted in any way for making their decision to retire.  I'm actually surprised that more didn't take the offer!!  Even though there is an MOU between the City and the union, retirement incentives are not generally negotiated; it's usually offered to the union by the administration as a take it or leave it situation; and since unions are in the business of looking out for their members' best interests, they agree.

Now, I feel that the incentive was not a good move because for the City to save money, they need to not replace the retiring employees at the same level that they were at.  Mayor Drew has said that he's only replacing those employees that are required by law and those in key positions.  Also, he promised that for the January Common Council meeting he would bring forward his plans for the reorganization that he has in mind.  However, so far, most of those positions vacated have been replaced by employees appointed in the acting capacity including the Deputy Personnel Director being appointed as Acting Personnel Director.  I realize that employees were promoted so that down the chain of command there are vacancies; however, this was not what was presented as the reason for the incentive:  the incentive was presented to allow for reorganization.  So tell me:  if you put people into the vacant positions with the exact same job descriptions and duties as the retiring employee had, how are you going to change those positions or eliminate those positions through a reorganization without affecting the employee in the position.  Seems to me that you're back to the same status that you were at before the incentive: an active employee in the position that you wanted to modify????  Seems to me that prior to the incentive, if you'd modified the job and the active employee didn't want to do the modified job, they could have retired; now you've got employees in the position that you want to modify that it's eligible to retire and will have to take a new job, reduced pay or something - I just don't see that happening.  That's why I think that the reorganization should have come before any retirement incentive.

By the way, we were promised that the plans would be presented at the January meeting but nothing.  I'll add it to the list of things I'm waiting for:  the report on the outcome of the China trip; the actions taken after the report on the Water and Sewer Department issues.  Although I have read the report by the committee on government efficiency, it has not been actually presented to the Common Council for approval and implementation.  Simply the administration could share with the whole council a flow chart of proposed hierarchy of departments and reorganization.  Hopefully, one has been done by now.

Another, reason that I've problems with the incentive that was offered:  it's huge brain drain on the City.  There were quite a few 466 employees who retired over the last few years and now with these retirements, the City is losing much of it's historical knowledge.  Seems to me that you're going to be repeating mistakes already made; these are the people who know what's been tried before and worked and what didn't.  Not to say that things can't necessarily be done differently, but you just extended the learning curve significantly and can we as a City afford that???

I certainly do not in any way shape or form, blame those employees who accept this incentive and wish them all well!!!  They all serve the City well and the City is in debt to their years of service.  I for one am sorry that they retired.

Linda Salafia

Common Council Member (R)

Middletown Families on National TV Discuss 'Scream Rooms'

  Isolation rooms are used by Connecticut schools, but became the center of debate when Apryl Dudley PTA President at Farm Hill  brought the mis-use of these rooms to the public's attention leading Middletown Board of Education to investigate as well as state agencies. The media dubbed these room 'scream -rooms' after people came forward after hearing screams of children and the alledged locking of students in these rooms. Union 466 Vice President Jeff Daniels stated his staff had cleaned urine and blood from the room at Farm Hill. This former janitor's closet which had an unlocked electrical cabinet inside, and had been used as an isolation room. Superintendent at the time was Michael Frechette who's contraint has not been renewed as a result of this controversy and many others the Insider previsously covered.

  The segments feature parent Jane Flanders Majewski who has a child with Autism, and her family's plight in dealing with local Special Education Services, Board of Education Administration, and the State Dept. of Education trying to get an appropriate plan of individualized education in place for her son and proper training for aides who are often unprepared regarding safety techniques. It was discovered by state investigation that a Middletown aide had used an unlawful restraint technique with Majewski's son. The Insider would like to commend Majewski, Dudley and other families for being brave enough to come forward and advocate for special needs students.

“Good Morning America”is broad cast at 7 a.m., “World News” at 6:30 p.m., “Nightline” is at 11:35 p.m. and the segments will be featured during each.

 

Early Retirement Pay Outs Costly to Taxpayers & Other City Pensioners

Click to download & view

    The following is a draft of a memorandum of understanding proposed between the City and the Teamsters Local #571 offering certain employees an incentive to retire prior to their normal eligibility.  The following is a draft and has not been formalized or accepted by the Council and could change.  We understand that the employees have until November 7th to indicate their interest in the package and until that point the actual cost to the City has not been determined.  

     However, this is going to be an expensive package if implemented:  there are between 40 and 50 members of the union and of course it's unknown how many will take the offer so there are no numbers regarding the impact on the general fund as of now.  For those directors that are not part of the union, it is rumored that the City is offering up to 5 years of service;  so say you've 18 years of service, that could be now 23 years of service which at 2.5% would be 57.5% of the average of the highest 3 years of salary.  If the average salary is $90,000, the annual pension would be $51,750 or $4,312.50 per month.  Now they would be able to start collecting this pension 5 years earlier than they normally could have.

     Pensions from the City are capped at 70% of a set average salary, however this union's contract has adjusted that cap to 80% based on the retiree paying a higher percentage for their health insurance.  This draft offers some employees who have been with the city for 35 years or more a cap at 85%.  If their average salary were $100,000 (which is possible since overtime is included in their base salaries for the calculation), an additional 5% is $5,000.00 per year.

     However, the general rule of thumb has been that a golden handshake only saves money if you don't replace the retiring members; that doesn't seem to be the case here. If the building official retires, are you not going to replace him?  From the council agenda, it appears that the intent is to replace the Director and or Deputy Director of Personnel with Deputy City Attorneys, savings?? 

     Also, during the budget process this year, the pension funds was not funded to the extent that the actuaries had indicated and a special committe was to be formed to review the pension funding.   By giving the highest paid employees effectively a minimum of an additional 5% to their pension for their lifetime is going to be a tremendous hit to the pension fund.  These numbers of course are not available as of yet.  Remember, this union just won at the state labor board a case against the City and BOE where a union member retired and was replaced by a non-union worker, so they've a history of protecting their positions.

     Health insurance should be mentioned here also cause it's not mentioned in the offer at all; so not paying any more or less as a result of getting a higher pension.

     These seems to be an expensive way to get people to retire.  Offering 5 additional years to those employees who are not members of the union just to get them to retire is very generous!  Seems that it would be less expensive to negotiate with those employees who you wish to have leave on an individual basis rather than give away the farm to the whole management tier.

     Drew is cleaning house of directors who did not support him under the "guise" of saving money, however; the fact is that this will over in-flat city government departments and cost more.One can only speculate whom Drew and the Democratic majority/Serracrats have in mind to place in possible new director positions....
Lisa Santangelo? Another unqualified relative of Councilwoman Hope Kasper?

Letter to the Editor: Pessina: "I disagree with Teachers' Union Endorsement"

An Educational Advocate:

Over the past two years, Councilwoman Kleckowski has worked tirelessly assisting special needs families in working with local officials and those at DCF after the wake of the unfortunately named "scream room" controversy that occurred at Farm Hill School.  She worked with individual families who sought her help in establishing better standards of care for special needs students after the dismantling of the previous district wide Special Education program that had been held at Spencer School.

              Deb has continued to display her advocacy stemming from her being a member of the DECA Advisory Board for 20 years, a state DECA Judge for 6 years, an annual speaker for the Middletown High Community Service program for over 10 years and a supporter for Ryan Woods Autism Foundation.   She participated in the resolution the 466 labor-breach of contract by the previous BOE Administration.

As a Councilmember, she supported sick day donation for ill City employees and a professional advocate for educational opportunities and access for all students for over 20 years.   She is also a member of the newly created Career-Technical Education Advisory Board.   What is amazing, is as a mother of two young children, is that her advocacy is all volunteer time to better her community.  She does this in addition to her position as an Adjunct Professor at Middlesex Community College.

             Despite all the hard work I have mentioned that Councilwoman Deborah Kleckowski has put into Middletown education- the teacher's union Middletown Federation of Teachers Local 1381 has chosen to endorse Matt Lesser.
                Although Representative Matt Lesser is on the State Legislature's Education Committee, he could have done and/or could be doing so much more for the students of Middletown.  He supported the passing of a law that any incidences of restraint used in special education services have to be reported to the state after the fact; notwithstanding the issue that the current programs are failing our most vulnerable students- something that Candidate Kleckowski has already been actively trying to fix in Middletown.   

One wonders could the support from the Teachers Union he received be based upon his support for legislation regarding tenure that the teacher's union campaigned for?  If so, why didn’t they also support Deb for her tireless efforts she advocated for here in our city of Middletown?
                The statement given by Middletown Federation of Teachers Steve McKeever could also have been more complimentary to Deb, as she has proven her dedication to our Teachers and Educational system here in Middletown as Matt has done with his work on the Education Committee at the state level.   From my point of view and I am sure other Educational Advocates (Parents & Teachers), THEY BOTH are committed to improving education in our city and state in ways that make sense for all stakeholders!
                This endorsement sends a political negative message for a person who works so hard for education in our community which Deb does not deserve.   Also, when using the terminology ‘stakeholders’ it is our children, and youth who are the final stakeholders of our educational system too.  ,

 Councilwoman Deb Kleckowski will continue and always has been an Educational Advocate; in her eyes our children and youth of our city are the ones that matter most to her.    

 I don’t agree with the Teacher’s Union’s endorsement;  I ask that the voters of our city to show their appreciation for all of Deb’s efforts when they go to the polls by voting for Candidate Kleckowski.  

Please remember, when you cast your vote don’t send the wrong message to our children and youth by basing it purely on politics.  For if you do, the message is simple: “that hard work does not matter- it’s who can give you a hand up, not necessarily work or the greater good of all."

Councilman Phil Pessina
Minority Leader of the Common Council