FRANKSMITHSAYSNB EDITORIAL:
Minority Leader Alderman Louis Salvio was correct when stating that he didn’t want to hear from out of town speakers, He was referring to the individuals that may be New Britain school teachers but live out of town and do not pay city taxes.
However, the Majority leader was quick to admonish the alderman for his comment and appeared to be grand standing to the teachers that were their to push their agenda.
With over 400 attendees only three of the speakers were from the general public.
Mr. Michael Foran the New Britain High School Principal cited that the school is off probation but if the budget is cut the state may put us back into the probation status.
With some four hundred teachers in attendance with mostly not city taxpayers; shores up Alderman Salvio’s original opening statement.
The main theme of all the school personnel was to push for the return of the proposed three million dollars cut for the school budget by the Mayor.
Mrs. Ann Mikulak a former president of the CPOA a taxpayers watchdog organization asked “Why do we continue to pay some $40,000 in rent for the Probate Court? I spoke to the people at city hall and asked why don’t we make room for the Court in the new police station? They replied it has already been decided. She continued her remarks by saying how can they say that when they haven’t even put a shovel into the ground yet!
Mr. Tony DePietro also with the CPOA made his point by pointing out that many of the seniors received no raises that are on social security and cannot afford the proposed increase.
The biggest question of all is the fact that the overall school enrollment has decreased 600 students that used to cost the city $11,000 per student saving the school board administration a total sum of $6,600,000 dollars annually. What happen to that large sum of money? Why the big push for more money by the board of education?
I trust that the Common Council Members will find the answer as to where the money disappeared too!
11 comments:
Mr. Salvio was 100% correct in saying he didn't want to hear from out-of-towners. 400 people and only 3 speakers were from New Britain? Sounds like a union staged circus to me.
Again, Mr. Salvio was correct. These teachers make their enormous salaries in New Britain, and then choose to build their lives in the suburbs, because unlike many in New Britain, they can afford to live anywhere they want on their bloated salaries.
Now they come to a budget meeting, and they speak in favor of huge tax increases that they not only will not have to pay like the rest of us, but these same tax increases will help to bloat their fat paychecks even further.
They chose to support other towns with their taxes, so maybe now it is time to pay the piper.
What ever happened to residency requirements? Oh that's right, the unions won't allow it, will they?
" Anonymous said...
Mr. Salvio was 100% correct in saying he didn't want to hear from out-of-towners. 400 people and only 3 speakers were from New Britain? Sounds like a union staged circus to me."
This commenter may have misinterpreted Frank Smith's remarks. I believe what Frank meant was that, while he was there, only 3 of the speakers spoke about the general or entire city budget (Frank left before the hearing ended). Actually, of the 53 people who spoke, 47 were NB residents and 6 were from other towns. Only 7 of the 53 speakers spoke generally about the City Budget. Forty six (46) spoke only about the Ed. budget.
Rick Guinness reported: When the sergeant at arms, "Johnny Mel" told him his time was up, he retorted, "I am just warming up," and he continued to preach to the choir.
Maybe Mr. Mel should have locked the doors?
Unions have nothing to do with residency requirements.
Per the General Statutes of Connecticut, Chapter 166, Section 10-155f, "No municipality or school district shall require that an individual reside within the municipality or school district as a condition for appointment or continued employment as a school teacher." (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap166.htm#Sec10-155f.htm)
Per the General Statutes of Connecticut, Chapter 166, Section 10-155f, "No municipality or school district shall require that an individual reside within the municipality or school district as a condition for appointment or continued employment as a school teacher." (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap166.htm#Sec10-155f.htm)
This is just one of those many bad laws that is behind the financial ruin this state is facing. I'm sure our legislative delegation would work hard to repeal this bill to give more control to the employer (school boards) over where their employees pay taxes after being paid at taxpayer expense.
Many of the teachers who spoke at last night's meeting were residents of New Britain, to say otherwise is a misrepresentation. I personally don't cast blame on the teachers or the union. The administration and the Board of Education members who engaged in scare tactic threats about laying off hundreds of teachers. Until the administration is willing to open their budget to public scrutiny I have grave reservations about any claims they make about teacher layoffs.
Here's a unique idea, instead of raising taxes, how about cutting spending?
Anonymous said...
A major expense seems to be these special education teachers that get a 6 figure salary, and then you have to pay them more for teaching an extra student. According to one report, just one teacher was awarded over $80,000 in extra pay--bringing his annual total to an estimated $200,000!
If you are going to cite other school districts, why not do what many other Connecticut school districts do with these special ed students and contract them out to one of the specialty schools.
We even have one here in New Britain--the Oak Hill School--which advertises that they provide the teaching in public schools. The students could stay right in the schools where they are, and Oak Hill or another of many contractors could supply the teachers at a much lower expense to the taxpayers.
Instead of paying a "tenured" teacher to barely lift a finger for 5 students, you will get a caring private teacher who will actually care about teaching the students for probably half the cost. Since the teachers still are required to have the same state certifications, the only difference is the cost--despite all the rhetoric you will no doubt hear from the union bosses.
The students win, and so do the taxpayers!
If, as Rick Guinness reported, the main issue is that the special ed students won't learn anything, then why not try bringing in one of the specialty schools to take over that program like in so many other school districts?
Thanks Frank.
It looks like I was the only one listening! hahaha
This is going to be another difficult budget.
Mark Bernacki
Post a Comment