|
Website Design and Hosting donated by Coasis® LLC www.coasis.com All contents are copyright © Coasis® LLC a Microsoft® Gold Certified Partner. All rights reserved. |
|
Original Document Distributed by R14 BOE to explain the 5th grade Move: |
|
An Effort Worth Our Time… |
|
Reconfiguration Chronology:
7/01/06 Superintendent Robert Cronin’s Effective Start Date
10/04/06 Facility and Space needs workshop; Reconfiguration is first proposed to BOE and public. Region_14_Proposed_Reconfiguration.pdf 10/13/06 Region 14 Parents are notified of a “discussion” on the Reconfiguration concept to be held on 10/16, 3 days later. This notice in the Friday folder was the first direct notification on the subject from the administration to the parents and made no mention of the potential vote.
10/16/06 Regular Region 14 BOE Meeting; Parents spend over two hours asking the Board for more answers, hard data, analysis, etc. - Reconfiguration is unanimously accepted by the BOE and Cronin is authorized to proceed.
10/18/06 John Pratt visits Jay Hubelbank to review documents; Hubelbank does not personally think the 1968 report has significant bearing on reconfiguration.
11/13/06 Parents raise reconfiguration issue during POF regular BOE meeting.
11/20/06 Litchfield County Times: Hubelbank quoted … “nothing I known of prevents reconfiguration.”
11/20/06 Primary Author of the 1968 Regional 14 agreement, former Region 14 Superintendent, and Woodbury resident, Ted Martland’s letter is published in the Republican-American stating that “this [reconfiguration] conflicts with agreements assumed during regionalization.” Op_ed_November_20th TH Martland.pdf
12/05/06 A fire Marshall is called to the BOE meeting by the administration and it is reported that over fifty parents were turned away from the meeting in the library. The two previous meetings had been held in the much larger cafeteria. Erica Barber informs the Region 14 Board that she intends to spearhead referenda in Woodbury and Bethlehem on the question of reconfiguration.
11/27/06 Bethlehem resident, John Pratt meets with Dr. Cronin to discuss the possible violation of the 1968 plan.
12/16/06 Two hundred residents petition for a hearing on the reconfiguration at a Rally in Bethlehem sponsored by Families for Region 14.
12/18/06 Hubelbank proposes that building proposal is substantially reduced under reconfiguration, quotes 26 million as the figure- Mr. Hubelbank and KBA adopted this figure independently Region_14_Renovations_12-18-06,_Revised.pdf 1/08/07 Public Hearing on reconfiguration, petitioned for by Families for Region 14 pursuant to CGS 10-238. Erica Barber and Tom Brayton raise the issue of 1968 Plan. The district reveals that 25 minutes (it’s actually officially 29 now) of instructional time will be cut to accommodate the busing. Howard also states that the reconfiguration plan will be revisited if the bus routes don’t work- see Jan. 8 legal transcript for quotes and details. Transcript of BOE Hearing 1-8-07.pdf
1/09/07 Ms. Racevicius is quoted at the hearing in the 1/09 Rep-am “I think it has been grossly misrepresented as to what the community wants.” The PTO board contacts Ms. Racevicius and asks her to attend a PTO executive session to be held later in the week.
1/11/07 The PTO executive board requests that Ms. Racevicius resign from her position until after the reconfiguration is in place. The action is initiated by the president of the MES PTO. Ms. Racevicius refuses to resign her post. Ms. Racevicius claims there is a conflict of interest because the PTO president is also married to a BOE member who is actively promoting the reconfiguration plan.
1/11/07 Region 14 airs the January 8th hearing on NEAT TV without sound- this was apparently a mistake and has occurred on other occasions, but end result is that much of the public still does not have any specific information on reconfiguration.
1/22/07 The PTO executive board votes to remove Ms. Racevicius from her position as Vice President for her political stance on reconfiguration.
1/24/07 A number of parents request that the Chairman of the Board, John Howard, investigate the PTO incident, Mr. Howard concludes his investigation without ever contacting Ms. Racevicius.
1/16/07 Kaestle Boos gives construction revisions presentation. The administration estimates the renovation will cost roughly 26 million dollars. The project never in fact was brought to referendum that year and a different firm, Antinozzi, was eventually chosen by the building committee to proceed with the project, The current estimate is 39-44 million.
2/05/07 BOE MEETING: Woodbury Resident Erica Barber raises the issue of the 1968 plan during the POF of regular BOE meeting. The BOE takes steps to create a building committee to create a proposal for the building project to accommodate the reconfiguration
3/07/07 Region 14 Residents submit a referendum request to BOE, the referendum request also appeared in the local paper and on the saveregion14 website and was eventually signed by almost four hundred Region 14 residents. Referendum Request to the R14 Board of Education.pdf
3/29/07 Region 14 Residents submit same referendum request to the BOE with additional signatures .
4/3/07 John Howard, former Chairman of the Region 14 BOE, mails a letter to families for Region 14 declining to submit the reconfiguration issue to referendum.
4/12/07 Families for Region 14 forwards Save our Schools in neighboring Bridgewater, CT a copy of 10-47c, Atwood, the Region 12 Regionalization Plan, as well as an outline of the obvious legal similarities between the two regions. Later that week the town of Bridgewater calls a press conference to announce that they will not allow a vote on potential consolidation to continue given the Region 12 Plan and the amendment procedure outlined in 10-47c .
4/29/07 Over four hundred residents petition for town meetings in both towns to amend the regionalization plan to enforce the 1968 recommendation to educate and house grades K-5 in both Bethlehem and Woodbury at a petition drive in Woodbury sponsored by Families for Region 14.
5/06/07 RFP for Architect is posted, the request for proposal outlines a request for facilities to accommodate the reconfigured district.
5/08/07 DISTRIC BUDGET REFERENDUM Passed in Woodbury 1136 to 750; lost in Bethlehem 392 to 242.
5/22/07 BOE MEETING: Parents continue to raise the issue of the 1968 Plan during POF regular BOE meeting.
5/29/07 Woodbury Town Meeting, selectmen schedule a debate between Ffr14 president, Erica Barber and Dr. Cronin to discuss the upcoming referendum.
5/31/07 The town of Bethlehem votes 613 YES to 291 NO to amend the plan to keep the K-5 schools with any changes to the configuration approved only through referendum.
6/7/07 FFR14 candidates are defeated for BOE election, all candidates are chosen by Bethlehem but defeated by overwhelming Woodbury votes. Woodbury registered voters outnumber Bethlehem’s 3:1 making the legal question of the amendment process, town vote versus region-wide vote, even more compelling.
6/12/07 Woodbury votes not to amend the plan 953 YES 1405 NO
6/18/07 John Pratt and Susan Scherf of Bethlehem file a lawsuit against regional School District 14 claiming that their voter rights have been violated since the 1968 Regional plan guarantees K-5 schools in the individual towns and case law and state statutes suggests that the plan must be amended via referendum to change the educational plan.
7/16/07 Region 12 files a declaratory judgment action
7/9/07 The Board votes unanimously not to bring the amendment to referendum despite the affirmative May 31 vote by the town of Bethlehem which would seem to legally mandate that they bring the vote. The Board also introduces a policy change to reduce the privilege of the floor time, they cut it from two sessions, 20 minutes per topic, 5 minute per person unlimited total time, to one 20 minute session, 3 minutes per person.
8/8/07 Region 14 asks the Litchfield County Superior court to dismiss the case against Region 14, Judge Pickard denies the motion.
8/13/07 Injunction hearing: Pratt and Scherf request that the judge reverse the decision to reconfigure until a vote on the issue takes place. Region 14 contends that they have the authority to reconfigure; claims that stopping the reconfiguration will cause a significant disruption, citing the fact that the teachers are prepared for the change, the bus routes have been in place since June 18th , and they cannot reverse their actions in time for the start of school. Plaintiff's brief Pratt-Scherf Suit.pdf
Pratt_Affidavit_Hubelbank_7_07
8/23/07 Judge Pickard denies the injunction request based on the balancing of the equities which seem to suggest that it will be too disruptive to delay the start of school. He states in his memorandum that the reconfiguration should be allowed to continue “while the case is heard, argued, and decided.”
8/29/07 First day of school, Busing fiasco results from a break down in communication between Laidlaw and the administration regarding the assignment of children to their new routes in the reconfigured district. A significant number of children are placed on the wrong bus, dropped at the wrong stop, etc. Some younger children were unaccounted for several hours. Children who were deposited safely got home two to three hours post-dismissal, Parents reported that their children arrived home, tired, thirsty, and some had wet their pants on the bus. Complaints were made to the police, local authorities, and significant local and statewide news coverage followed.
9/1/07 Enrollment numbers are reported by the secretaries in each school. The K through five elementary population is down to 828 from a previous 918. 90 fewer K through five students at the elementary level in the first post reconfiguration school year. LINK enrollment
9/4/07 Region 14 administration holds Transportation meeting for area residents. Six parents are allowed to speak at the meeting, a line of parents are turned away and encouraged to schedule appointments with the administration.
9/4/07 The first BOE meeting of the school year takes place and the Board institutes their new revised and reduced privilege of the floor. Parents are now restricted to one twenty minute session, three minutes a person. A number of parents are turned away and do not have the opportunity to speak. Parents and residents voice objection to the newly implemented reconfiguration and the reduced privilege of the floor. Families for Region 14 files a formal complaint with the BOE regarding the inconsistencies, failure to meet objectives, and contradictory statements from administrators and the Board in the months since the vote to reconfigure regarding class sizes, transportation issues, and preparation- FfR14 requests that the board form an independent committee to address the concerns, restore credibility, and evaluate the effects of the plan on the children and communities. Jay Hubelbank outlines steps to rework the bus routes to satisfactorily meet the stated 45 minute goal and 15 minute bus/waiting period.
9/17/07 Board of Education Meeting: Hubelbank reports that they are still revising the bus routes to meet the stated 45 minute goal and 15 minute waiting period.
10/1/07 Board of Education Meeting: Hubelbank reports that they are still reworking the bus routes to meet the stated 45 minute goal and 15 minute waiting period. In response to the complaint filed by FfR14 on 9/4, the BOE community relations committee, led by Ms. Gati, states that the administration is still working to meet the promised goals, still working on the bus routes, and denies the request for an independent committee, citing that there is no need for further action. Antinozzi and O&G are introduced to the community. The two firms are charged with implementing the facility renovation/expansion to accommodate reconfiguration and expect to hold a referendum in February- the Declaratory Judgment action filed by Pratt and Scherf on the legality of reconfiguration is still pending in court.
10/23/07 The Building Committee presents a revised renovation project premised on the two reconfigured elementary schools and improvements to Nonnewaug School and estimates 39-44 million. This is approximately 13-18 million higher than the 12/18/06 proposal used to show cost savings associated with revised building project.
11/13/07 Jay Hubelbank introduces 2007 enrollment projections to the Region 14 Building Committee which convey a K-5 enrollment drop of 72 students for the 2007/08 School year. This is consistent with the enrollment data available at both elementary schools for the 06/07 and 07/08 school years. In 2005, the state projected a loss of 28 students in 2007. The building committee is expected to be charged with a new renovation proposal based on the reported decline in students.
12/17/07 Regular BOE meeting: BOE consultant, Peter Prowda, confirms the 72 drop in K-5 student enrollment and attributes it to the turmoil stemming from the realignment (Please see BOE meeting 12/17 discussion segment available through Neat TV). Jay Hubelbank presents a revised number of teachers at the K-2/3-5 grade levels to be considered as a basis for the new building plans.
01/07/08 Superintendent proposes moving the special education pre-school program to Bethlehem. The director of finance reveals that they have spent approximately $60,000 in legal costs to object to the regional vote on reconfiguration..
03/30/08 Trial Court Hearing Pratt v. Region 14 Post Trial Brief.pdf
06/05/08 Families for Region 14 endorsed candidates, Steve Sordi and Scott Baider are elected to the Region 14 Board of Education. Steve Sordi received the highest number of votes overall in the region out of any candidate.
9/01/08 Enrollment numbers are reported by the secretaries in each schools. The K through five elementary population is down to 779 from a previous 828 in 2007. Overall, 139 fewer K through five students at the elementary level in the second post reconfiguration school year.
7/21/09 Memorandum of decision: Judge Pickard applies a limited definition of "fundamental amendment" as referenced in the Atwood case, and initially decides in favor of the defendant, the Region 14 Board of Education. Judge Pickard footnotes in his decision that he would have hoped to have some clarification from the Supreme Court in the pending Bridgewater v. Region 12 case prior to making his decision. July 2009 Superior Court Ruling Pratt v Region 14.pdf
7/24/09 The Supreme Court releases their memorandum in Region 12 v. Bridgewater and subsequently clarifies the amendment standard; the court states that any "non-incidental" change to a regional plan must be amended via referendum vote with plurality approval in each member town. This is consistent with the position Families for Region 14 has been advancing since late 2006. July 2009 Supreme Court Ruling Region 12 v Bridgewater.pdf 7/27/09 The Plaintiffs (Pratt and Scherf) file a motion to reargue the case given the Supreme Court's decision in Region 12.
8/10/09 Judge Pickard grants the motion to reargue.
9/1/09 Enrollment numbers are reported by the secretaries in each schools. The K through five elementary population is down to 756 from a previous 779 in 2007. Overall, 162 fewer K through five students at the elementary level in the third post reconfiguration school year; this represents an 18% drop in the K-5 student population in three years.
10/2/09 Re-argument Hearing
10/26/09 Briefs are filed. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Re-Argue.pdf 12/15/09 Judge Pickard reverses his original ruling and finds for the Plaintiffs, John Pratt and Susan Scherf. Judge Pickard grants the request for injunctive relief and orders that the schools in Woodbury and Bethlehem be returned to their Legal, 1968 Plan designated K through five configuration. December 2009 Final Superior Court Ruling Pratt v Region 14.pdf 12/22/09 The Region 14 Board of Education calls a special meeting to discuss their options moving forward. The Board votes 6 to 2 to appeal the decision. Steve Sordi and Scott Baider vote against the appeal citing the low likelihood of success coupled with the obvious benefits of a fair settlement via referendum vote.
Monica Gati, Chuck Cosgriff, Carla Juhas, Steve Paluskas, Linda Bulvonoski, and Debbie Corsico vote to appeal the decision citing the alleged educational benefits of reconfiguration. Minutes Special BOE Meeting 12-22-09.pdf
|
|
Email: saveregion14elementary@yahoo.com Phone: 203-228-4582 |
|
Save Region 14 Elementary |
|
Reconsideration Not Reconfiguration |
|
This website is optimized for Internet Explorer |
|
Article on “Reconfiguration Refugees” Litchfield County Times Dec 13, 2007…
http://www.countytimes.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19112497&BRD=2303&PAG=461&dept_id=478976&rfi=6 |