Region One Report learned today of two new resignations at Housatonic Valley Regional High School….

It has been reported to Region One Report  from reliable sources at Housatonic that Principal Matt Harnett has   resigned this morning  to take another job at another district, and Gina Jasmine is also resigning to also take a job outside of Region One.

Deja Vu all over again….

1) The money does not come out of the budget

2) It is still counted as her salary, and goes towards building her retirement package

3) Was it one or two years of a  her raise

4) If the administration has formed a union, why does not the Assistant do the same thing

5) If we can talk about the Superintendents salary when she is involved in a law suit, why can’t we talk about

the Assistants salary while she is involved in a law suit?

6) It is pretty obvious that the Superintendent has lost control, and we now have a “rouge” Assistant

7) It was not so much a “concession”, but more of a “bribe”, or “inducement”, or “payback” to voters to approve the budget

lets let the state elections commission figure this out

Sec. 9-364a. (Formerly Sec. 9-344). Acts prohibited in elections, primaries, referenda, caucuses and conventions. Penalties.

Any person who influences or attempts to influence by force or threat the vote, or by force, threat, bribery or corrupt means, the speech, of any person in a primary, caucus, referendum convention or election; or wilfully and fraudulently suppresses or destroys any vote or ballot properly given or cast or, in counting such votes or ballots, wilfully miscounts or misrepresents the number thereof; and any presiding or other officer of a primary, caucus or convention who wilfully announces the result of a ballot or vote of such primary, caucus or convention, untruly and wrongfully, shall be guilty of a class C felony.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MMilesWHDD?feature=mhee

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 interfere 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)  Region 1 Board Chair Moore of Kent imposes three-minute “directive” on comments, and limits comments to what he considers as “budget items” only.  He states that this is by law. He is incorrect. (Oh, and by the way, the first person he recognizes to speak is Curtis Rand who did not even raise his hand to speak, Mr. Moore just bypassed people who had their hands up to speak to go directly to Curtis who admitted he did NOT want to speak….hmmmm something smelly there!)

2) It is announced that the Superintendent  “if the budget is passed” (that is a direct quote) she will cut one year off her new contract, and give her $2,000.00 raise back to the  “children”. This is appreciated by all (only Gale Toensing and Marylin Yerks thanked he for this). But the way in which it was presented “if the budget passes” is combative, and, almost demanding. If she had stated simply that she was giving her raise back and cutting a year off her contract, it would have been received as much less combative. But, we will take what we can get and be thankful for it, just remember, that money still stays in the budget, and once again, she gets to rip up a new three-year contract and replace it in her first year of that contract.

3) it was stated by Chairman Moore that because of the Assistant Superintendents lawsuit against a board member, that under a suggestion from the boards lawyer, they could not talk about her contract. When pressed for a clarification after the meeting if Mr. Moore could get that legal opinion in writing, he refused, saying it was mentioned to him, and not put in writing, when we persisted to find out if he would ask, he eventually said the lawyer was “away on vacation”. So, there is no real legal reason that was presented factually as to why the Assistant Superintendent could not do the same thing as the Superintendent. Listen to the audio very carefully..Mr. Moore admitting he has no real, written legal opinion. (It now appears the Superintendent now has lost any control, or supervisory influence over the Assistant Superintendent), and the “excuse” that was used to stop from seeing if the Assistant Superintendent would do the same as the Superintendent was a “feeble” cover up at best of the obvious denial of the Assistant Superintendent to join in the give back of one year of her new contract, and donation of her raise back to the school. Sad, very sad. Even sadder is the flimsy way the board chair tries to explain it.

Click on above link to hear audio

4) $93,000 was taken out of the budget, no iPads this year, but the raises for technology will stay in the budget

5) A computer company that does work for the region, presented facts that laid out how the money quoted as being spent right now that would be saved was false information, and inaccurate. No comments came from the board, and the company distributed its information to the board, the press and all in attendance.

6) A motion was made by Marylin Yerks to drop the Assistant Superintendents position, that vote failed 3-2.

7) The Town of Salisbury, simply the biggest voting block on the board was NOT REPRESENTED at this meeting. Neither Scooter Tedder or Mike Flint (the alternate) attended the meeting.  We are not assessing who was at fault here, but, in a situation like this, with the town of Salisbury holding the largest voting block, to have no representation for the people of Salisbury is a crime, and should not happen again. (That, in our opinion, and everyone else at the meeting) was disgraceful, and embarrassing to Salisbury

8) Congratulations! All of the First Selectmen from all six towns were in attendance at the meeting (see what a little prodding will do!)

9) The budget was approved this was and will go to a vote for a fifth time on August 20th.

Video of the meeting will follow later tonight.