The Deal…………………………………… Reply

Here is The Diane Goncalves Early Retirement Agreement and Release..the dollar amount is… Well, add this roughly $200,000.00 or so of non-educational expenses to the buy out from last year,,,so the grand total for the two pay-offs is somewhere in the neighborhood of $400.000.00! All on non educational expenses. WOW. Soooo, I would figure there is no room in the budget to hire a replacement, meaning it’s time to eliminate that position and hand over the responsibilities to The Director Of Instruction…in our opinion

earlyretirementagreementandrelease-page-001 earlyretirementagreementandrelease-page-002 earlyretirementagreementandrelease-page-006 earlyretirementagreementandrelease-page-007 earlyretirementagreementandrelease-page-003 earlyretirementagreementandrelease-page-004 earlyretirementagreementandrelease-page-005Please click below for the Diane Goncalves Early Retirement Agreement and Release

earlyretirementagreementandrelease

Well Lookie Here…whoda thunk? 1

For every action, there is a reaction…now, lets see how much this will cost taxpayers to hide the truth….

Information Updated as of: 11/02/2014

Case Information
Case Type: T50 – TORTS – DEFAMATION
Court Location: LITCHFIELD
List Type: No List Type
Trial List Claim:
Referral Judge or Magistrate:
Last Action Date: 10/31/2014 (The “last action date” is the date the information was entered in the system)

Disposition Information
Disposition Date: 10/31/2014
Disposition: WITHDRAWAL OF ACTION
Disposition By: WITHDRAWAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Party & Appearance Information
Party No Fee Party
P-01
DIANE GONCALVES
Attorney: Appearance was E-Filed MANGINES & BURKE LLC (405787)
41 NORTH MAIN STREET
SUITE 204
WEST HARTFORD, CT 06107 File Date: 07/18/2013
D-01
GALE TOENSING
Attorney: Appearance was E-Filed CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT PA (420124)
ONE STATE STREET
SUITE 1800
HARTFORD, CT 06103 File Date: 08/14/2013
O-01
JEFFREY PINGPANK
Attorney: GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP (428263)
100 PEARL STREET
SUITE 1100
HARTFORD, CT 0610

An interesting email arrived last night on the Region 1 “Special” board meeting….. 1

Now, Region One Report received this email on Friday night from an attorney who watched the Region One Special Board Meeting on YouTube. I will not identify the attorney, as we did not receive permission to mention their name, or their firms name.  Now, I am not a lawyer, so I present  their concerns from the email directly to our readers.

Following is the body of the email:

1. The MOTION to render Assistant Superintendent Diane Goncalves an agreement, retirement package or whatever it is called MUST BE MADE IN OPEN SESSION.

2. The motion CAN NOT say…”the Region One Board of Education approves the contract “discussed in executive session this day regarding Diane Goncalves”……

3. The motion MUST be legally binding, stating the offer in full amount. THE MOTION MUST SHOW THIS or the motion is therefore invalid. Were the minutes to be presented in legal court, it must be proven that the six members of the Region One Board approved the full amount and other conditions. THE MOTION CANNOT MERELY STATE THAT THE BOARD APPROVES OF ‘WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION”.
(This is why there is a legal delineation between “executive” session and “open session”). If the motion…made in public session does not state specifically and directly what was agreed upon then the motion is invalid.

Someone should place a call to Tom Hennick at the State FOIA. I believe he will affirm this interpretation.because a motion made in “public session” must state specifics noting legally that the Board understood and agreed to the listed points of the agreement. A motion cannot go to court stating that a Board approved “what was discussed in executive session”. None of the public, citizens, taxpayers were priviledged to executive session. This agreement cannot be forced on taxpayers if the “motion approved” does not state all the specifics to said taxpayers, and public. Once again, if said motion did not state the legal specifics of the agreement, the motion is invalid. Signatures or no signatures. And, one other point, no person representing EITHER side of said agreement can be the minute taker. The person taking the minutes and signs off on them must be an impartial, If the Superintendent took the minutes of this meeting, the minutes become invalid because she is not a impartial member of the group.

After reading this, if anyone want to contact FOI in Connecticut to inquire or ask if these are legal points the contact info is below.

860 566-5682 Toll Free: 866 374-3617
Here is their web address:

http://www.ct.gov/foi/site/default.asp

Going…going…..gone…. 1

The Region 1 Board of Education unanimously approved an early retirement package for Diane Goncalves tonight… no details were released we were told that we would be told the full financial details when the contract is signed. As of right now Diane last day in Region 1 is October 31st. What the plan is going forward after Diane leaves is “still a work in progress” ( how can you let someone retire and NOT have a plan in place already?!).  Kind of interesting that Diane’s last day is HALLOWEEN!

More details tomorrow morning on The Breakfast Club on Robin Hood Radio

Shenanigans 2

Shenanigans: noun, Informal. 1. Usually, shenanigans. mischief; prankishness: Halloween shenanigans. deceit; trickery. 2. a mischievous or deceitful trick, practice, etc

Just sayin’:

Multiple meetings of the A.B.C and Region One boards on a possible expensive buy out of the Assistant Superintendent ( while her contract will be ending next year)

To us (as we said in our run for the school board last year) it would be a colossal waste of money to buy out any of the administrators, just let the contracts run their course, then hire a new Superintendent, eliminate the assistant position and give additional duties to the Director Of Instruction to assist the Superintendent. If the ABC wants their own superintendent for the grammar schools, use the money saved by not having an assistant and hire one (I am sure there would have to be legal items to work out to give the ABC a budget to spend money, but legaleze could be worked out). If that happened then the Director of  Instruction would not need to assist the Region 1 Superintendent as the work load would be far less. But I digress!

Our questions are:

Has either board asked the firm that is representing Gale Toensing their thoughts on a buy-out thus ending a law suit Gale will most likely win?

Aren’t there far more important EDUCATIONAL matters the ABC and board should be concerned with ( declining school population, etc, etc..)?

Far too much time has been spent on this one topic. Multiple meeting of the ABC and Region 1 Board. Please, just let the legal system run its course, and let her contract run its course. If Gale Toensing wins the lawsuit…then the board could consider ending the Assistant Superintendent contract (without a buy out!).

Before the last election for the Region 1 Board Of Education most of our areas First Selectmen urged passage of the budget, urging residents to elect a new board instead of defeating budgets to try and get rid of the two top administrators.. The top two reasons the new members were elected? 1) to change the board leadership. 2) To set in motion the groundwork for a NEW administration AFTER current terms were served.