Even the most uniformed onlookers tuning in to Hartford Public Schools Board of Education meetings this week, with appropriate low expectations, would have reason to be disappointed by how the members of this once trusted and thoughtful organization handle even the smallest details of their service to Hartford’s school children.  A group of Hartford school children meeting during circle time and deciding on what snack they want is a better example of effective leadership and legislative acumen.

The BOE held three meetings this week, which brings up problem No. 1; only two were placed on the Board’s schedule a day before the week began.  This may be appropriate to avoid presidential assassination attempts, but as a public engagement maneuver, ah, go directly to jail and do not pass GO.

Problem No. 2 appeared on June 5th, when the Board of Education’s Policy Committee met to discuss work being done on several policies, including a long overdue equity policy which will not see the light of day until the end of the year at the earliest.  We’re only in the 21st century, there’s still time.

It was during this policy meeting where they discussed their health services policy.  A policy on which HPS Chief Performance Officer Bethany Silver stated they had done a “very thorough job.”  However, the thinking by HPS administrators and the BOE was not so “thorough” as no mention was made of student mental health or of a mental health services policy, which HPS does not have.

The Connecticut Department of Education states that a comprehensive, “planned, sequential PK-12 school health education program addresses the physical, mental, emotional and social dimensions of health and enables children and youth to establish and practice health-enhancing behaviors over a lifetime and become healthy and productive citizens.”  Logically then, it follows that this “planned, sequential PK-12 school health education program” ought to be guided by a comprehensive health policy.  A group of Hartford school children in circle time could connect those dots.

The current student health policy (Student Policy 5157) focuses on primary medical care issues but does include a section on Suicide Prevention and Intervention.  The policy states that the “Hartford Board of Education recognizes that suicide is a complex issue and that schools are not mental health treatment centers.”  Neither are they primary health care centers, yet the district has a lengthy student medical policy.

HPS pays millions of dollars a year on outside folks to treat student mental health, including Effective School Solution ($1.7 million), Soliant ($500,000), and CT Behavioral Health ($521,000).  Similarly, the folks from InterCommunity Health Care told the folks at a June NRZ meeting that they maintain school-based programs in HPS.  Despite the presence of these folks, HPS has no stated plans or procedures for handling the mental health care needs of students…other than to spend, spend, and spend again.

At the Board’s March Teaching & Learning Committee meeting, Superintendent Torres-Rodriguez presented data which shows that 97% of school administrators “believe that there is a growing youth mental health crisis.” That “crisis” is put into perspective by the following quote by U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, as shared by the Superintendent’s office:

“Imagine a high school with 1,000 students.  Now imagine about 450 of them saying they are persistently sad or hopeless, 200 saying they’ve seriously considered suicide, and nearly 100 saying they’ve tried to end their own life over the past year.  That is the state of your mental health in America.”

This is the state of mental health in America’s schools.  And HPS has no mental health policy.  Legal mandates and social progress should not be the only motivators to creating practical policy.

Problema numero tres is an afront to democratic ideals, fairplay, good governance, and Cliff Huxtable.  It is, rather, the forming of a partisan, autocratic future shit show favored only by those folks favoring power rather than purpose.

After previous discussions concerning Board Member Walker’s appropriate recommendation that the Board’s standing committees seek the advice and input of Hartford teachers, the June 5th policy meeting included proposed changes to the Board’s Committee Policy (9321(b), or, if you are looking at the available online copy, policy 9321(h) – which is problem 3.2).

To be consistent with previous Board members inviting non-Board members to speak at committee meetings, the Committee Policy will now include the following: “At the discretion of the Committee Chairperson, a committee may provide an opportunity for public participation.”  None of the attending Board members had a problem with this language.  Therein lies the rub.

“At the discretion of the Committee Chairperson.”  Depending on how much of a Superintendent’s lapdog a particular BOE Committee Chairperson may be, there is little chance of an invite to a teacher, or teachers, being approved by that chairperson.  An invitee’s opinion, information, or advice may not align with the Superintendent’s rhetorical agenda; thus, pressure would be brought to bear upon the chairperson to not accept the requested invitee.  Discretion in the hands of anyone in a position of authority is the very definition of doubt.

Based on the advice of Board attorney Lori Mizerak, Ms. Silver assured everyone that this language is the way to go.  The word “discretion” has brought doubt into play, and now Ms. Silver doubles down on doubt by bringing in the advice of legal counsel.  As much as can be ascertained, 2,551 persons in the United States have served 22,540 years in prison based partly on the advice of counsel and were later found to have been wrongfully convicted.

Robert’s Rules of Order (ROR) has been the go-to guide for serious people seeking to conduct serious meetings ever since General George Custer was left to his discretion and attacked the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians at Little Big Horn in 1876.  The BOE formally adopted ROR as its guiding parliamentary hand during a June 2022 Regular Meeting.  Ms. Silver stated that in chapter 4 of the 10th edition of ROR, the language, “under control of the presiding officer” is the authoritative source for the inclusion of discretionary language into the Board’s policy.

The 12th Edition of Robert’s Rules, chapter 9, section 29 states: “Some bodies, especially public ones, may invite nonmembers to express their views, but this is done under the control of the presiding officer subject to any relevant rules adopted by the body and subject to appeal by a member.”  A relevant rule adopted by this body is Board Bylaw 9121, item 4, which states the Chairperson shall “appoint board committees, subject to board approval.”   If selection of the members of the committee itself is subject to board approval, and not at the sole discretion of the Board Chair, then a relevant trail of logic would follow which would lead us to require board approval for visiting members of the committee.

A relevant rule from Robert’s Rules, 12th Edition, at chapter 13, section 15, states: “A standing or special committee may include, or even have as its chairman, one or more persons who are not members of the assembly or the society; but if the chair appoints the committee, the names of all such nonmembers being appointed must be submitted to the assembly for approval.”   While this applies to appointments to committees, logical consistency states that invitees to the committee ought to receive similar consideration.

ROR, 12th Edition, chapter 50, section 12 states: “It is possible for persons who are not members of the assembly or the society to be appointed to committees – even to the position of committee chairman – but control over each such appointment is reserved to the assembly.  The president (chairperson) cannot assume such power, however, unless it is given to him by the bylaws or by action of the assembly in the individual case.”

Ms. Silver stated that the BOE follows ROR and so to be consistent, her inserted language ought to be appropriate.  Ms. Silver should have stated that the BOE follows ROR at its discretion.  Ignored are rules on the adoption of meeting agendas.  Ignored are rules on quorums.  Ignored are rules on appointing members of committees and committee chairpersons.  Ignored are rules on which member becomes chairperson in the absence of the regular chair.  These are included instances of ignorance but not limited to them.  And then there are the many instances of Board Chairman Rigueur’s application of the Board’s Bylaws at his discretion (here, and here).  Again, these include but are not limited to.

Democracy and fairplay, and the stated scope of authority, holds that board and committee meetings are not the playground of chairpersons enforcing their will and ideology upon the elected and not so elected members of the legislative body; no matter how many degrees from MIT they may hold.

Problem No. 4 appeared during the Board’s Finance & Audit Committee meeting on June 7th.  Upon reaching the agenda item entitled “Items reviewed in Committee,” Board liaison Christina Santiago made the comment that “as is our practice,” the members will be discussing issues under this agenda item which had been previously reviewed in committee.  This was stated just after discussion was held on four different agenda items which had not been previously reviewed in committee; at least public committee review.  I guess they’re still practicing.

The current item being discussed contained contracts for seven different outside groups for mental and special education services and for recruiting substitute teachers and paraeducators; the total cost equaling between $6.2 million and $9.2 million.

As is their practice, Ms. Santiago stated that these contracts had all been reviewed in committee.  Looking back at the May 21st Teaching & Learning Committee, the “review” consisted of the Superintendent’s approved slide show, which contained a table with the name of the vendor, a brief description of what they provide, and the cost for each.  Except for the ESS Staffing and Management Solutions (ESS), the other six received no discussion or questions from the Board.  ESS is being paid up to $2.5 million to recruit substitutes and paraeducators via the unique tactic of recruiting within Hartford.

The basis of problem No.4 is that we are still referring to HPS Chief of Talent and Management, Tiffany Curtis, as current Chief of Talent and Management rather than ex-Chief of Talent and Management.  Board Member Walker stated that with this ESS contract, and a contract previously given to the Avon Marketing firm of Adams & Knight (“Hartford Public Schools Go Vegan”) for teacher recruitment, and with HPS’ own inhouse talent and management folks, it appears that HPS is running “parallel HR departments” yet cannot retain teachers; “you can’t keep people.”   Mr. Walker stated the HPS must focus and “champion” retention over recruitment.  Ms. Curtis stated that they are able to do things at once, retention and recruitment, and that OTM works with every school using “best practices to support retention.”  Using the Superintendent’s tactic of spouting rhetoric to make what isn’t seem like it is.  And since the beginning of the school year, nearly 250 teachers have left Hartford Public Schools.

This is when things got really laughable.  Previous to this agenda item, there was a discussion on a contract for Qualtrics, the folks who conduct surveys of HPS students, staff, and parents and then assist the Superintendent in presenting shit data in the best light possible.  Ms. Silver stated that Qualtrics provides an employee satisfaction dashboard where HPS can assess district-wide and school specific teacher climate and culture at the click of a button.  Then Ms. Curtis stepped all over the Qualtrics presentation by issuing one of the top ludicrous statements coming from someone not named Ludacris:

“OTM may not have direct insight or oversight in how to retain teachers in schools because we are not right there in every school.”

Ms. Curtis then stated that with ESS, they are employing a “strategy” (yes, she actually called this a “strategy”) of only putting the hired substitute teachers into 10 schools, where OTM will be better able to assess their job satisfaction more effectively than if they were “spread over the district.”  WTF?!  You have 39 schools “spread” over a radius of about 5 miles where technology spreads news frequently and quickly; this is not Laura Ingalls Wilder teaching at the only schoolhouse for over a 100 miles on the prairie!

However, during the May Teaching & Learning Committee when ESS was introduced, the reason given for targeting only 10 schools was a needs-based one, not some “strategy” aimed at diagnosing the ineffectiveness of HPS’ teacher retention abilities.  Ms. Curtis said that with the ESS hires, there is an “aggressive goal” of retaining those folks as HPS employees after their initial 90 days as ESS employees.  Mr. Walker’s argument is that having an “aggressive goal” is not the same thing as having an aggressive plan to retain the new substitute teacher hires.

The  ”insight” and “oversight” Ms. Curtis is searching for can be found in the HPS climate and culture surveys, run by Qualtrics, where the results, as stated by Chief Engagement & Partnership Officer Black-Burke a day later during a Family and Community Engagement Committee meeting, are used to create plans for further action.  Now if they only had a director to holler “action!”

Problem No. 5 arose at the aforementioned Family and Community Engagement meeting.  Committee Chair, Board Member Escribano, cut the meeting short leaving three items on the agenda uncovered, reviewed, or discussed due to her “double booking” herself into another meeting, and apparently her HPS BOE duties were not concern number one.

Ineffective school district leadership and oversight has the potential to cause a decline in student performance.  HPS believes the problem lies elsewhere so they spend millions on outside intervention.  Ineffective school district leadership and oversight has the potential to cause high staff turnover.  HPS believes the problem lies elsewhere so they spend millions on outside intervention.  Ineffective school district leadership and oversight has the potential to cause a decline in community trust and engagement.  HPS believes the problem lies elsewhere so they spend millions on outside intervention.  Ineffective school district leadership and oversight has the potential to negatively impact student well-being.  HPS believes the problem lies elsewhere so they spend millions on outside intervention.

It is doubtful that there is a community in the country where this group would be allowed to continue as influencers and fate holders of nearly 17,000 kids.  A change is not needed now, a change was needed yesterday.