Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 10:05 AM
Good morning!
[sent to all Board Members]
Fran Wolski will be honored by the YWCA for the “Women in Leadership Awards” program. The event will take place at the Aqua Turf in Southington on May 20, 2009 from 11:30a.m. to 1:00 p.m. There is a meal choice provided: chicken, fish or pasta. Please let me know if you are interested in attending and if you want the district to cover the cost. Please let me know your meal selection as well.
Thank you beforehand for your prompt response.
Louisa Despins---secretary for the board of education
despins@-csdnb.org
Phone: 860-824-2284
Fax: 860-612-1533
27 comments:
makes perfect sense to me. Raise people's property taxes to pay for people to go for a fancy dinner at taxpayer expense. Since we are paying the bill for these dinners, can anyone who is a taxpayer order a free ticket for the dinner????
Board members should pay for their own meal!
'nuff said!!
Frank, I'll bet you could find at least 100 people at the senior housing that would love to go for a free meal. Why don't you ask for enough tickets for everyone in the building? If the taxpayers are going to pay for free lunches, why can't any taxpayer get one???
Where is the self proclaimed Czar of ethics Sherwack to condemn such a blatant abuse of office and waist of taxpayers money? Oh, that's right, Sherwack is only the Czar when it is a Republican that is doing something he doesn't agree with. When the Democrats abuse their office or waist money, Czar Sherwack is as hard to find as Jimmy Hoffa!
WHAT A PHONY!
I would like to know if the Majority Leader of the Council, Mr. Truworthy is allowing such an expense of taxpayer money at a time when he is supporting huge increases in taxes to fund large raises for all the Board of Education employees and the Town Hall employees?
The title, Majority Leader implies some sort of leadership, so Mr. Truworthy, show us some leadership and tell us if you are really going to raise our taxes to pay for Board of Education members to live high off the hog at our expense?
The time to lead is now!
I have know Fran Wolski all my life. Our school years in New Britain are identical. Right now we are of different political stripes. Nonetheless, she is my friend. If you disagree with her politics, either don't go to the dinner or, if you want to go, buy your own ticket for dinner. Case closed! Don't denigrate Fran and her friends because you feel or are politically different.
Lou: my comments had nothing to do with political opinions but simply the offering of paying for the tickets by the Board's secretary. Under these hard economic times that our city is facing i would think, as you suggested, that the tickets should be purchased by the attendees.
Alderman Salvio:
My comments had nothing to do with the recipient of the award, which I would surmise is a deserving recipient, nor did I criticize anyone for attending.
I am however, disgusted with the fact that our taxes are going up, and up, and up, and up, and the Board of Education is on record as offering to pay for these $50 tickets for anyone at the Board of Education office that wants to go to this function on our dime. The spend, spend, spend attitude contunues.
If you want to go, then the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to foot the bill for your lunch, especially at a time when the council is promising tax increases and layoffs of city employees to balance the budget. I believe that is in very bad taste.
If my comments were received as critical of Fran Wolski, who has nothing to do with authorizing this expense, then I apologize for that appearance.
It is bad enough that some board of education members are getting their luncheons paid for by Kurt taxpayer money with but the ridiculous function of honoring Fran Wolski who has done everything to destroy the school district along with her friend Peter Kochol. They are both big time losers/
I forgot to sign my earlier message, but I would also like to add that I have no idea what party Ms. Wolski is affiliated with, and for this story it shouldn't matter.
Alderman Salvio:
My comments had nothing to do with the recipient of the award, which I would surmise is a deserving recipient, nor did I criticize anyone for attending.
I am however, disgusted with the fact that our taxes are going up, and up, and up, and up, and the Board of Education is on record as offering to pay for these $50 tickets for anyone at the Board of Education office that wants to go to this function on our dime. The spend, spend, spend attitude contunues.
If you want to go, then the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to foot the bill for your lunch, especially at a time when the council is promising tax increases and layoffs of city employees to balance the budget. I believe that is in very bad taste.
If my comments were received as critical of Fran Wolski, who has nothing to do with authorizing this expense, then I apologize for that appearance.
I do think Mr Salvio that you are out of line by jumping of F\rank Smith. You are becoming else please think about what you write. Wolski di not goto public school she went to Mary Immaculate.
Stop letting the bottle talk
I would have no problem with the District paying for ONE representative (either Doris or the Board president) to go with Fran, but offering paid tickets to the entire Board of Ed is a typical misuse of tax money. Maybe they think they are entitled after they so graciously gave up their usual Christmas soiree last December.
I would LOVE to know how much the District spends on food and travel each year.
The Thorn has left a new comment on your post "New Britain Board of Education Wasting Taxpayers M...":
I forgot to sign my earlier message, but I would also like to add that I have no idea what party Ms. Wolski is affiliated with, and for this story it shouldn't matter.
Alderman Salvio:
My comments had nothing to do with the recipient of the award, which I would surmise is a deserving recipient, nor did I criticize anyone for attending.
I am however, disgusted with the fact that our taxes are going up, and up, and up, and up, and the Board of Education is on record as offering to pay for these $50 tickets for anyone at the Board of Education office that wants to go to this function on our dime. The spend, spend, spend attitude contunues.
If you want to go, then the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to foot the bill for your lunch, especially at a time when the council is promising tax increases and layoffs of city employees to balance the budget. I believe that is in very bad taste.
If my comments were received as critical of Fran Wolski, who has nothing to do with authorizing this expense, then I apologize for that appearance.
Publish this comment.
Reject this comment.
Moderate comments for this blog.
Posted by The Thorn to Frank Smith Says NB at May 18, 2009 8:28 PM
New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com), Serving New Britain, Conn., and surrounding areas
News
Schools ask for union concessions
Monday, May 18, 2009 10:17 PM EDT
By JAMES CRAVEN
Staff Writer
NEW BRITAIN — With an uncertain state budget on the horizon and funds for education being slashed at all levels, the Consolidated School District of New Britain is asking its union membership for a freeze on wage increases for the upcoming year.
Board of Education President Sharon Beloin-Saavedra, along with Superintendent Doris Kurtz and other board members have been negotiating with the six unions involved with the school district since January.
With a budget of $118 million, the district has $7.8 million less than it wanted.
“We are essentially repeating last year,” Saavedra said.
According to Saavedra, Kurtz has been able to reduce the budget gap to approximately $3.8 million, with about 12 positions eliminated.
“With or without concessions we’re going to lose people,” Saavedra said. “It’s just a matter of how many?”
In a worst case scenario in which the unions decided on no concessions, Saavedra said the loss of positions would be drastic.
“If we cannot close this budget gap through concessions it is likely we will have to eliminate 60 to 70 additional positions, mostly teachers,” she said. “This will have a devastating effect on the value of the education our children receive and the morale of the staff remaining.”
There are about 800 teachers in the New Britain district.
At a Board of Education workshop Saturday, the board came up with two specific proposals for the unions to consider so that conversations could become more focused.
In the first option, the board has proposed that each union freeze its current 2008-2009 contract for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. The freeze would mean no changes in any provision of the current contract, simply a deferral of provisions previously negotiated.
The second option would call for furlough days to be taken by teachers, along with step freezes and cost-of-living increase freezes. If this option was chosen, furlough days would have to be taken during the five days reserved for teacher workshops.
“There would be no loss of instruction to the students,” she said.
Saavedra said she has asked the unions to respond by May 27 with either their acceptance of one of the options or their own proposal.
James Craven can be reached at jcraven@newbritainherald.com or by calling (860) 225-4601, ext. 231.
URL: http://www.newbritainherald.com/articles/2009/05/18/news/doc4a1212cfcc4f9145504069.prt
© 2009 newbritainherald.com, a Journal Register Property
If the board of education expects support from the public they should start telling the truth about what is in the budget.
They blow more smoke than old factory chimney.
Lou Salvio was out of line in his support of Fran Wolski. She is not a leader. She is responsible for Doris Kurtz being here all these years and has been shameful as a member of the School Board. Kurtz nominated her for this honor. Count all of the administrators who will be there in addition to school board members.
This is a farewell to Wolski as she leaves the board this year. Kurtz should have paid for all the tickets out of her own pocket. She owes Wolski. The rest of us hold Wolski in disdain.
This has to be a bad joke.
Are our Council members THIS far out of touch with their constituency? Really?
Look. If even one ticket is paid for with taxpayer funds, it is NOT ethical, it is NOT what taxes are designated to be used for.
What up for Christ's sake. Buy a kid a text book, or pay for a substitute to teach for a day. What is wrong with you people?
There is nothing wrong with these
people. They are doing what people
do best, enjoying a FREE LUNCH! Let's face it the majority of our district receives free lunch why shouldn't administrators and friends get some too? I think I would choose the chicken over the pasta.
Can we get former Herald reporter Rick Guiness an invitation too? He might like a free lunch.
Anonymous said...
This has to be a bad joke.
Are our Council members THIS far out of touch with their constituency? Really?
Look. If even one ticket is paid for with taxpayer funds, it is NOT ethical, it is NOT what taxes are designated to be used for.
What up for Christ's sake. Buy a kid a text book, or pay for a substitute to teach for a day.
What is wrong with you people?
WHY WOULD THEY CARE ABOUT ETHICS? AN ALDERMAN COMMITTED SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL OF THEM, VIOLATIONS THAT ARE SERIOUS ENOUGH TO MANDATE THAT HE MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR COMMITTING SUCH SERIOUS OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRUST, AND INSTEAD OF PERFORMING THEIR SWORN DUTY TO REMOVE THE ALDERMEN FROM OFFICE, 13 OF THEM VOTED WITH HIM TO IGNORE THE BI-PARTISAN FINDINGS OF THE CITY ETHICS COMMISSION. ALL 13 OF THEM SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR FAILING TO PERFORM THEIR SWORN DUTY UNDER THE CHARTER.
"WHY WOULD THEY CARE ABOUT ETHICS? AN ALDERMAN COMMITTED SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL OF THEM, VIOLATIONS THAT ARE SERIOUS ENOUGH TO MANDATE THAT HE MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR COMMITTING SUCH SERIOUS OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRUST, AND INSTEAD OF PERFORMING THEIR SWORN DUTY TO REMOVE THE ALDERMEN FROM OFFICE, 13 OF THEM VOTED WITH HIM TO IGNORE THE BI-PARTISAN FINDINGS OF THE CITY ETHICS COMMISSION. ALL 13 OF THEM SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR FAILING TO PERFORM THEIR SWORN DUTY UNDER THE CHARTER."
Can you give some specifics to what you're refering to? I'm not aware of what you're refering to, and am deeply troubled by the accusations. I'd like to know more, so I can understand, and if needed, get more involved.
Can you give some specifics to what you're refering to? I'm not aware of what you're refering to, and am deeply troubled by the accusations. I'd like to know more, so I can understand, and if needed, get more involved.
ANSWER TO ABOVE:
The Ethics Commission issued a unanimous ruling finding that Alderman Catanzaro committed ethics violations and issued a report to the council calling for him to be sanctioned for his unethical behavior.
Article 4.7 of the city charter prohibits an alderman from being heard on a matter of personal interest, and further prohibits an alderman from voting on a matter of personal interest. The sanction mandated by the charter for violation of either section is "expulsion" from the council.
Alderman Catanzaro violated both of these sections by speaking to the council in opposition to this unanimous, bi-partisan ruling of the Ethics Commission, and then was joined by 12 of his fellow Democrats in voting to reject the findings of the Ethics Commission.
The other 12 aldermen violated their oath of office by failing to remove this alderman from office for such a blatant violation of the charter, which was committed in their presence and on the public record. The other 12 Aldermen were complicit in the original violation committed by Alderman Catanzaro by participating in the illegal vote to ignore the unanimous ruling of the Ethics Commission, the vote being illegal because the Alderman it pertained to was illegally allowed to vote on his own issue.
Both violations are more than sufficient evidence for filing of articles of impeachment against all 13 Aldermen involved. The problem is that only these same aldermen have the authority to act on an impeachment proceeding, so their attitude is that they are free to violate the law with impunity.
It is clear to many of us that these 13 are out of control with power and are "above the law," and account to no one for their actions.
It is this same out of control, group of untouchables that you suggest should look into the ethics of others?
Enough said?
Didn't the self proclaimed Czar of Ethics, Phil Sherwood himself participate in this illegal activity?
How shameful!
Phil Sherwood Ethics underwriter did participate in the ethical violation but later he said "I figured whatever, nobody was going
to give me a lollipop anyway so I just went with the crowd, the lunches are always good"
Board members were asked if the School District should pay for the tickets or if individual BOE members would pay for their own tickets. Seven members felt that the District should pay and three said they would pay for their own tickets and objected to using taxpayer funds to buy tickets...I'll leave it to you to speculate which three BOE members objected and opted to pay their way.
When did this take place?
And if I understand you correctly, Catanzaro committed an ethics violation by voting against his ethics violation?
That doesn't make sense, since he would have had to have committed an ethics violation to begin with??
I'm very confused.
Can you please site some specifics so I can go look this up? (Docket number, resolution number, dates, place, etc?) I really wish to find out more about this and understand it more fully, but I just don't understand your post. Sorry for the confusion.
it's interesting that in a closed door meeting where NO one is suppose to tell what goes on in executive session that it gets out...I'll give you three people who would talk...
Try reading the New Britain Herald:
Ethics commission finds against alderman
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 By RICK GUINNESS
Herald staff
NEW BRITAIN — The five-member city Ethics Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to reprimand alderman Paul Catanzaro, saying he had violated two sections of the city’s ordinances.
The decision came after a four-hour meeting that included two closed-door sessions, during which his accusers were kept largely on the defensive, prodded by a lawyer to answer if they revealed information from a private meeting and to backtrack on charges of conflict of interest.
“I thought we put on fantastic case,” Catanzaro said after the decision in favor of alderman Lou Salvio. “In more than one area, we proved there was no violation.”
Alderman Phil Sherwood agreed.
“It seems clear that the complaint [by Salvio] was filed not because of any moral outrage,” Sherwood said. “This complaint came within days of Paul publicly stating he was considering running for mayor.
“The ethics commission should not be used as a political baton,” Sherwood said.
The hearing came on the heels of two previous meetings, including one in which the complaint was dismissed, 2-1. In the other, the commission decided to hear the issue again when it was found “ambiguous” by Salvio, minority leader of the city’s Common Council.
Salvio said that by voting on a resolution to have the city handle a landscaping job around the City Hall garage, Catanzaro — also an employee of the Parks and Recreation Department — would be benefiting himself.
Salvio had maintained that it was inappropriate for Catanzaro to take part in a discussion regarding the council’s hiring of a private contractor.
Former Mayor William McNamara asked Catanzaro if his voting against the hiring of an outside contractor increased his popularity with his union.
“I was just trying to save the city money,” Catanzaro said.
Catanzaro’s boss, Parks and Recreation Director Bill DeMaio, was grilled by Catanzaro’s lawyer, Lynne Ustach, and testified to how much Catanzaro would have made had the city taken on the two days’ worth of landscaping work, which has not been done: $120.
Ustach reminded him that Catanzaro had told the council he would not participate in the work.
Former Mayor William McNamara asked Catanzaro if his voting against the hiring of an outside contractor increased his popularity.
Salvio admitted under cross-examination that he now believes Catanzaro would not have benefited directly as a result of his actions. He told Ustach that he was not aware of how much the job would cost, and what a groundskeeper would make on the job.
He became emotional and left the hearing, saying that at the time he talked about the ethics issue with Catanzaro, he had just lost several loved ones who passed away.
Ustach had characterized Salvio as a hostile witness.
When she asked him how he knew what happened in one of the previous closed-door sessions — enough that both he and Mayor Timothy Stewart had discussed the matter publicly — Salvio told Ustach, “None of your business.”
Ustach asked Salvio, “Did you talk about the vote? Why did you talk to the New Britain Herald? Did you feel bound by the code of ethics?”
City lawyer Joe Skelly said the issue is whether Catanzaro violated the code of ethics.
“You wanted a rehearing?” Ustach continued. “You didn’t think my client was entitled to confidentiality? The moment that this became published in the New Britain herald, it eliminated my client’s rights. My client deserves the right to confidentiality. Mr. Salvio needs to be held to a higher ethical standard.”
Salvio kept saying he didn’t violate the code of ethics.
As for Salvio’s complaints about Catanzaro, she said, “it does not show a conflict of interest.”
During his time to speak, Catanzaro recalled that Salvio first hinted at a conflict-of-interest charge at the time of the council vote, and alderman Phil Sherwood stuck up for Catanzaro. Then, he said, “I assured [Salvio] I would have no part in the work.”
Post a Comment