About the Superintendents offer last night..is it illegal under state statutes? Did she violate the law? 3

In previous budget discussions with the Board Of Education, it has been clearly stated that ANY information that is put before the public can ask for a Yes or No vote….look back at previous Board meetings on the CATV 6 Youtube Page, peruse old board meetings, and you will find this discussion many times.


I am not sure  if this is the exact statute, but this following line was mentioned at several of the board meetings….”no employee, of any school district in the State of Connecticut, can publicly promote or coerce a  “yes” or “no” vote on any municipal  referendum.   Pamphlets can be printed urging the public to “get out and vote”, but the law clearly states that written materials or public statements cannot urge, or promote either a “yes” or “no” vote on a budget referendum.

Does the board need to look up state statutes to investigate this? I think so. Should individuals in the Region One district  know if what was proposed last night was within the state statutes, we think so.

Any question on this “offer” to pass the referendum  should be cleared up immediately, as to not interferelaw with the next vote by raising questions of possible violations of state statutes that would invalidate the referendum, or has, with this offer, the current referendum already been invalidate, questions that need to be answered by town lawyers, and the State of Connecticut Board Of Education.


  1. You raise an interesting and crucial point but the board majority will do nothing to pursue the question of whether the superintendent’s “generous offer” of “concessions” — conditional on whether the budget passes at the August 20 referendum — was a violation of the statutes and/or election law. The Elections Enforcement Commission and the Secretary of State will have the answer to that question and you can be sure that those agencies will be called today. According to the buzz after the meeting, the superintendent’s “generous offer” has ALREADY interfered with the next referendum. I believe most people who attended the meeting, including myself, went into it with an open mind about the next vote and leaning toward voting yes, not for any of the specious reasons in the five first selectmen’s letter, but because the almost supermajority who voted no last time KNOW that they’ve had the victory of the ballot box, they KNOW they’ve been heard even though the board majority and especially its “leadership” continue to turn a deaf ear to the public that doles out gazillions of dollars to support HVRHS and has clearly and repeatedly said they want new educational leadership at the top. The words used about the superintendent’s “generous offer” after the meeting were “bribery” and “blackmail” and “stunningly stupid.” Whether or not she actually violated the law remains to be seen but clearly the “generous offer” fell far short of the ethical standards Region 1 voters would like to see.
    ~~Gale Courey Toensing

  2. I believe the “generous offering” is nothing more than a list of demands. This does seem as though it violates the laws listed earlier and I hope, and am sure, someone will contact the correct people about this. This frankly is appalling to see and is a horrible example to set for the kids of HVRHS.

  3. …”I’m not reopening my contract…but I’ll give up the last year of the two year extension and donate the 2% pay increase, maybe split, to the Region One endowment fund, if the budget is passed…..I’m very happy to make the concessions with an intention of passing the budget… It’ll not come off the budget line but it’ll go back to the students… I’m not returning the money to the tax payers.”

    The concession made by the Superintendent last night at the budget workshop sounds like a ” kickback” offer in our opinion. A” kickback Superintendent” should result in a “kicked-out Superintendent!”
    Stan and Choo Singer

Leave a Reply