As viewers of the Hartford Schools “Board of Education meetings” and readers of this blog’s Archives can attest to, board members are fortunate that breathing is involuntary, because if they were charged with regulating their breathing, they’d be dead soon enough; and keep in mind that this criticism comes even though Yahaira Escribano is no longer a member of the board, she’s now playing on her phone during meetings as Mayor Arunan GreaseYourPalmalam’s staff chieftess. 

No, despite Escribano (and Oliver, and the other one who was rarely present that I can’t even remember what she called herself…Bello, yeah, that’s the ticket) leaving the building, stupidity is still at home.  This little group’s January 31st Committee of the Whole meeting (so called) underscores these criticisms and leaves us wondering, what’s the point of even having a board of education (so called)?

In the rare chance that readers may have considered this board to be a diligent group of folks working tirelessly at taking responsibility for ensuring that Hartford students receive a top-notch education, “Board Member” Rigueur would wipe that thought from your mind faster than the thought of a President Hillary Clinton during the “meeting’s” first agenda item.

In November of last year, the board began to receive a document called, “Board of Education Proposed Contract Summary” whenever a contract for an outside partner was being proposed (“BOE Pilot Process Crashes On Takeoff”). You will soon realize that this “Contract Summary” document is a big ol’ joke which aligns nicely with the joke that is the “Hartford Board of Education.” 

During the January meeting this document was used as “board members” were presented with a $75,000 contract proposal for the Hartford Knights Youth Organization (HKYO), another organization benefitting from the lack of parenting in Hartford.

Just minutes into the HKYO presentation, Rigueur wanted to know how many students were taking part in the program, which would seem like a logical question at first but then on further inspection we would have to say, “get with the program, Mr. Rigueur.”

The “Contract Summary” documents were initiated to provide information to board members and to answer many questions which they may have concerning the proposal.  Apparently, the guy labeled “chairman” of this group is not being diligent in doing his homework when it comes to meeting his responsibility as a board of ed member, because there, on page 4 of the proposal, under the heading of “Reason for Contracting,” it clearly states that 42 students took part in this program in 2022-23.  While there may be other sections skipped during a first reading of a “Contract Summary,” it seems to me that board members with a rational skill set would surely stop and take note of the section labeled “Reason for Contracting.”

While this may appear to be an insignificant oversight, it says a lot about the importance “board members” give proposals which come before them.  If you’re not going to read the “Contract Summary,” what’s the point of having it and what’s the point of bringing proposals to you?

And, if you are still not satisfied with this group’s insignificance, Mr. Rigueur would soon add to the supposition that the label of “chairman” of this group is of less importance than the title given to the guy who sweeps the room after the meetings, who likely doesn’t have an MIT degree.

Just minutes from displaying his mindlessness for detail, Mr. Rigueur would display the sort of rhetoric absent any connection to reality which is favored by Superintendent Torres-Rodriguez.  This moment of utter cluelessness would come when the agenda reached the Financial Update item.

While Deputy Superintendent of God knows what, Paul Foster, put on his chief financial officer cap and went through the bloody details of HPS finances for the month of November, those “board members” present sat silent, with eyes spiraling and minds thinking, ‘when will this pain be over with!’ 

The group was silent  to the details of Foster’s presentation, which included the detail that non-certified severance costs had grown 129.7% due to Torres-Rodriguez enduring the loss of more chiefs than those lost at Wounded Knee, and the information that the latest Torres-Rodriguez budget deficit number may not actually be January’s stated number of $77 million (down from the December stated number of $100 million) because the district may have the “potential” to reallocate nearly $30 million in COVID relief aid money to the next budget (the rate at which these budget deficit numbers are dropping, by April’s budget approval date, they’ll have a surplus).

The good thing about being silent is that while it allows others to think you are a fool, it’s better than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.  Mr. Rigueur broke the silence and fool rule by closing out Mr. Foster’s financial presentation.  Rigueur took the moment to remind folks that “from the beginning” he has been an advocate for the “smart,” sustainable spending of COVID relief money, and that he has been a hound dog for making sure that all federal funds are spent so that they are not lost to the district.

Where the hell as he been?   Was he not conscious when hundreds of witnesses, including Torres-Rodriguez and “board member” Johnson, submitted testimony to the state legislature in early 2023 stating that the pending end to federal COVID funds in 2024 will result in districts reaching a “fiscal cliff” since what they spent the funds on cannot be sustained by their usual revenue sources alone?

And couldn’t he, as an MIT graduate, put two and two together and realize that “smart,” sustainable spending was now off the table as Torres-Rodriguez reports a record HPS deficit the moment the COVID money goes away? 

And to top off his blindness, he doubles down with the comment that the district must make sure it spends all the funds being made available to them; like a district facing a $100 million, or $77 million, or what ever the deficit du jour number is, is going to have a problem spending money.  Seriously? 

Rigueur’s comments were the most meaningless and insignificant comments from a “board member” since Escribano put on her little hat of feigned indignation and told a Regular Meeting audience that all contract proposals are “vetted thoroughly” in committee.  She said this right after she presided over a committee meeting where she was the only “board member” present (“The Board of One”).

Don’t go away!  The insignificance of the January 31st “board meeting” continued as the wonderful and capable folks in Torres-Rodriguez’s cabinet would add emphasis to the question, what’s the point?

As our heroes moved down the agenda to the item labeled “Metrics Update: Adams & Knight,” regular board visitors and readers of the Hartford Schools Report said to themselves, “oh, this can’t be good” (“Three Contracts Without Demonstrating Success”).

HPS Chief Operating Officer Davis-Googe took the helm for the presentation of the “metrics” related to the work done for HPS by the Avon marketing firm, Adams & Knight (A&K); the complete presentation and Q&A session lasted all of 11 minutes.

While the latest A&K contract called for the company to run an advertising campaign to recruit suburban students to Hartford schools (come on in, the water is fine, the lunches suck, but the water is great), the focus, stated Davis-Googe, was on “retaining and recruiting teachers.”

Great, so what kind of data on the recruiting of teachers to HPS can you provide?  None.  Zilch.  That was the focus, but they have no data on the results of setting that focus.  However, they measure this contract a success because 36,000 digital users mistakenly clicked the link which brought them to the HPS recruitment page.  The district is claiming more people than the population of Glastonbury somehow got to the landing page, but they cannot tell you how many teachers they hired as a result of A&K’s marketing genius.  What’s the point?

Ms. Davis-Googe stated that Office of Talent and Management boss, Tiffany Curtis, was present at the meeting, however, she did not make herself visible in the Zoom Brady Bunch squares, nor did she speak to anything despite her office being in charge of the recruitment of teachers.  However, if she had spoken to the question of how many teachers were hired (if a “board member” had asked that question in the 11 minutes in which the presentation was in progress), you can rest assured that she would have said, “We don’t have that data with us, but we will get it to you,”  the district’s normal response when they are clueless about anything.

As to A&K’s professional marketing genius, take a look at the photo below used in this presentation and representing one of the ad photos from their student recruiting campaign.