Finance Bd Denied Second Contract Talks Observer

By John Voket

A special Board of Education meeting which was warned late last Friday, just before the deadline for filing such notice, commenced around 8:30 pm Monday evening following a two-and-a-half-hour “nonmeeting” that was closed to the public because teacher contract negotiation strategy was being discussed.

The public special session was held so the board could publicly react to numerous verbal and written requests to allow a second Board of Finance member to attend the ongoing teacher contract negotiations as an observer.

That proposal was eventually rejected by a 4-2 vote with members Katherine Fetchick and Anna Wiedemann opposing. The board’s seventh member, Vice Chairman Lillian Bittman, was absent.

 According to finance board Chair John Kortze, last month his board unanimously requested a second observer at the teacher’s contract talks in order to help provide “coverage and continuity on behalf of taxpayers on the largest single anticipated labor contract in the town’s history.”

Mr Kortze said, however, that the special meeting notice was conspicuously eliminated from an automatic system through which all town board members are notified by email when such meetings are scheduled. “Every Board of Ed meeting notice is emailed to every board and commission, which is convenient and appreciated for planning purposes,” Mr Kortze said. “But for some reason the notice for this meeting was never sent.”

The finance chair seemed especially miffed because the discussion at this special meeting was tied to ongoing public correspondence, debate, and discussion for weeks.

Apparently the failure to dispatch notices of the public meeting, which Superintendent Janet Robinson attributed to a district secretary, contributed to the inconsistencies in notifying board members and others. Board member Anna Wiedemann said she learned about the meeting just 45 minutes before the 6 pm “nonmeeting” commenced, after getting a call from Ms Fetchick.

“I was surprised because I had two separate conversations with [Ms McClure] over the previous weekend, one involving Elaine’s failure to notify me about a previous meeting where the board voted on seating an interim member,” Ms Wiedemann told The Bee. “I was also concerned to see that Lillian [Bittman] was absent, considering she was able to make the meeting to vote on the interim appointment.”

Chairman’s Responsibility

Ms Wiedemann was also upset that blame for dropping the ball on notifying board members fell on a district secretary, when “it was Elaine [McClure’s] responsibility as the chair to make sure her board knew about this meeting. To blame a district office employee is wrong.”

While Ms Fetchick knew about the strategy session, she said she was notified about the special meeting when she was contacted by a district staffer around 5 pm Monday. “They called asking me to take minutes at the special meeting,” Ms Fetchick said. “I said, ‘What special meeting?’”

Ms McClure responded to the meeting notice issue saying she “thought the notice went out.”

“I was told the board was notified on Friday [July 31],” Ms McClure said, adding that in regard to Ms Wiedemann’s comments, “I assumed you knew about [the special meeting.]”

The method by which the meeting was noticed to the town clerk also created some confusion because the public special meeting was to commence at the end of the closed session, which the meeting notice said began at 6 pm. Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia said her office was called Monday morning by the school district requesting the 6 pm meeting time be struck from the public calendar on the town’s website.

But Ms Aurelia said that the official meeting notice her office received just before closing time the previous Friday noted a 6 pm start, so she was not inclined to remove the start time from the town’s meeting calendar. The town clerk furthermore sought clarity from the Freedom of Information Commission to be sure her office was handling the matter appropriately.

Ms Aurelia said she was told by an FOIC representative the school board would have to either post a person or a notice at the meeting site explaining to anyone from the public why they would be prevented from attending the 6 pm “nonmeeting,” and how long they might be expected to wait for the public meeting that would commence some time later.

The board did post a flyer on the district office door saying the public would be admitted at the conclusion of the contract strategy session, but gave no indication how long the closed session would take.

No one, except a reporter, was present for the public session when the closed strategy meeting concluded around 8:30 pm.

At that point, Ms Fetchick and Ms Wiedemann both registered their concern about the notification process before they were advised by fellow board member David Nanavaty to “just move on” with discussion of the subject at hand.

Ms McClure confirmed that the addition of any additional contract talk observers would be decided in a public vote by the full school board. She read from Mr Kortze’s correspondence indicating a concern that the finance board’s sole observer, Michael Portnoy, would have difficulty making some of the scheduled daytime negotiation sessions, which were scheduled for at 3 or 4 pm.

The school board chair said she would speak to all parties involved to try and push the early meetings to later times to accommodate Mr Portnoy’s schedule.

‘What’s The Harm’

Ms Wiedemann then asked Ms McClure to explain what was the harm in adding a second finance board observer. Ms McClure responded, “It’s a difficult thing. We have to distinguish between strategy and what’s going on.”

Ms McClure said during the last teacher contract negotiation both sides had seven members on the team. Mr Nanavaty then asserted that by law, he was not even convinced that the presence of a finance board member would be warranted.

“It’s clear that we can have one member from the Legislative Council, but it’s not clear if the Board of Finance member should be allowed,” Mr Nanavaty continued, saying having one observer from the council and one from the finance board honors a “past practice” that was already established in previous negotiations. “This whole issue is getting blown out of proportion.”

Ms McClure then stated that if one member of the finance board or the council could not make a scheduled session, a substitute could attend on their behalf.

Ms Fetchick then noted there was no stipulation in state statutes that restricted the school board from allowing an additional finance board observer.

Mr Nanavaty countered, saying: “It’s clear the statute says [the observer represents] the fiscal authority. I’m not going to get in a debate over the law with you.”

When Ms Wiedemann asked why the union could not be invited to add personnel to their negotiating team to even up the numbers if adding a second finance board member was added to the town’s side, Mr Nanavaty replied, “To say anything more in public would void the spirit of the negotiations.”

After some additional discussion, interim board member Richard Gaines commented that if the finance board wanted continuity, it was that board’s responsibility to look at the schedule and make a member available. Interim board member William Hart then suggested that if a second finance observer was added to this contract session, the board would likely seek to have two observers at all contract sessions going forward. And then the council might be apt to request two observers as well.

“The smaller the group, the better,” Mr Hart said.

Ms Fetchick made a final attempt to sway the majority of her board.

“Citing historical makeup is short-sighted. To open it up to [more observers] to assure continuity is a better way of operating,” she said. “Not providing that is a disservice to the town.”

Ms Wiedemann agreed.

“The more people there the better. Having fresh eyes is an appropriate alternative to what has historically been the same people [on the team],” she said.

In the vote, which took place on Mr Gaines’ motion to allow a single finance observer with an opportunity for a substitute if necessary, Ms Wiedemann and Ms Fetchick stood defeated in their attempts to support adding a second finance board observer.