State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools
Chapter One

State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools:
Overview

In April 1997, the state legislature passed Special Act 97-4 declaring the Hartford school district was in a state of crisis.  The act found the continued existence of the crisis was detrimental to Hartford’s children and in conflict with the educational interests of the state.  Resolution of the crisis was considered a matter of paramount public interest.  The district’s educational performance was low, a privatization effort recently failed, and there was persistent turnover at the superintendent level, all factors precipitating state intervention.

As a way of dealing with the problems facing the district, the legislature dissolved the local Hartford school board for a period of at least 37 months beginning June 1, 1997.  In its place, a newly created State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools became responsible for the governance, management, and fiscal operations of the Hartford public school system.  The trustees became the district’s board of education with all the duties, rights, and responsibilities designated to such boards under state law.

Board Membership  

            The State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools is required by law to have up to seven members appointed jointly by the governor and legislative leaders.  The mayor of Hartford also serves on the board as an ex-officio, nonvoting member.  The board’s chairperson is designated by the governor.  Six trustees currently serve on the board, and a membership list is provided in Appendix A. 

            The appointed board members must include representatives of racial and ethnic minorities and persons with expertise in the fields of education and financial matters.  No board member is permitted to be a relative of any Hartford school district employee.  

Term 

            Figure I-1 sets out selected key dates relating to the term of the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools.  The board is solely responsible for the management of the school system from June 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000.  On or before January 1, 2000, the trustees may request a two-year extension.  The final decision regarding the extension rests with the Connecticut State Board of Education.  As mentioned earlier, however, the board of trustees received a term extension.

            Process upon board expiration.  As shown in Figure I-1, Special Act 97-4 outlines a process to transfer governance of the school system once the board of trustees’ term expires.  Since the board’s extension request has already been granted, in January 2002, the governor is required to issue a writ of election to the Hartford city clerk ordering an election for new school board members on a specified date in March 2002.  Candidates are to be nominated and elected in accordance with the city charter.  

            Following the election, new school board members are scheduled to take office July 1, 2002.  Special Act 97-4 specifies that terms of six elected members will expire on the Monday immediately preceding the first Tuesday in December 2003, while the terms of three members will expire the Monday immediately preceding the first Tuesday in December 2005.  In other words, six new members will serve 17-month terms once elected and three will serve for 41 months. 

            During the period from the election of a new school board until it officially takes control, joint meetings are required with the out-going state board of trustees.  The purpose of the meetings is to provide a transition from the trustees to the new school board.  Further, as discussed later in the report, the state monitors assigned in accordance with Special Act 97-4 to oversee the board of trustees must continue their oversight role under the newly elected board of education for one year. 

Duties and Responsibilities 

            The State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools has various duties and responsibilities required by Special Act 97-4.  The board is primarily responsible for the governance, management, and fiscal operations of the school district all in order to: 1) increase student achievement; 2) enhance the quality, adequacy, and equality of educational opportunities; and 3) allocate and manage resources efficiently and effectively.  The board of trustees also has all the duties and responsibilities state law provides to local boards of education.  For example, all contracts and agreements – including collective bargaining agreements – made in the name of the former Hartford Board of Education are now assigned to the state board of trustees.   

Specific responsibilities of the board also include:  

·     all aspects of school district governance and management, including delegating any such authority to the district’s superintendent; 

·     developing a budget for the district; 

        ·     continuing to implement the Hartford Improvement Plan; 

        ·     requesting the SDE commissioner to waive any provision of the statutes or regulation under the department’s jurisdiction regarding the development of innovative programs for educational improvement the board determines may assist it in improving the district; and  

·     providing a mechanism for parent, teacher, and community involvement in the schools.

Advisory council.  Special Act 97-4 requires the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools and the superintendent of schools to appoint a seven-member advisory council.  The council must consist of parents, classroom teachers, school principals, and a representative from an institution of higher education.  Full council membership is provided in Appendix B. 

The advisory council was established with a full complement of members in February 1998.  It holds formal meetings prior to the monthly board of trustees meetings to discuss its agenda.  The superintendent attends the meetings as do various board members. 

The purpose of the council is to advise the trustees and superintendent on matters relating to curriculum, student achievement, parental and community involvement, and school safety and discipline.  The council terminates upon the expiration of the board of trustees, and its responsibilities are transferred to the district’s newly elected local board of education. 

            Financial and operational audit.  The board of trustees, in consultation with the state education commissioner, was required by Special Act 97-4 to contract for a fiscal and operational audit of the Hartford public school system.  The audit had to be conducted by a certified public accounting firm, paid for by the city, and completed by January 1, 1998.  The board is required to develop a plan to address the audit findings and implement its recommendations.  A summary of the audit is provided later in the report.

            Accreditation.  Another directive spelled out in Special Act 97-4 requires the board to ensure all elementary and middle schools within the Hartford public school district become accredited.  Currently, six elementary schools plus the three high schools are undergoing accreditation.  The accrediting agency is the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. 

            Long-term building program.  The board of trustees is required to develop a long-term school building program for the district.  The program must be developed in consultation with the state education commissioner and expedited by the board and city.

            Collective bargaining.  With the passage of Special Act 97-4, the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools took over the administration of 12 different collective bargaining agreements.  Two of the contracts, covering teachers and principals/supervisors, fall under the requirements of the Teacher Negotiation Act (TNA), while the remaining 10 are covered by the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA).  Both acts set out procedures by which public employee contracts are to be resolved.  The teachers’ act imposes strict deadlines tied to the municipal budget process, while MERA’s timeframes are more flexible.  Both provide for binding arbitration.  

Among the employee groups under MERA are: buildings and grounds supervisors; custodians; paraprofessionals; health professionals; and school secretaries.  Table I-1 identifies each unit and its membership size. 

Special Act 97-4 gives the trustees special powers with respect to the collective bargaining process under both TNA and MERA.  First, the act provides the trustees  with direct access to the whole membership of a bargaining unit if attempts to reopen and renegotiate a contract with union representatives fail. This is not an option under either TNA or MERA. Second, the act alters certain provisions of the arbitration process for any contracts that reach the arbitration stage. 

With respect to reopening contracts already in place, if the union representative agrees with the board’s request to renegotiate current contract issues, the parties have up to 28 days to attempt such negotiations.  If agreement is reached, the process moves to the normal employee ratification phase.  However, if the board and the union representatives fail to agree, the board’s last best offer is submitted to the bargaining unit membership for a final vote.  

Alternatively, if the union representative denies the initial request to renegotiate, the State Board of Labor Relations is required to convene a meeting of the bargaining unit membership.  The board then may present its proposed revision directly to all the affected employees for their vote, which is final. 

As mentioned, the act alters the process for any negotiations that end in arbitration.  Specifically:

·       the arbitrators may make no presumption in favor of: 1) retaining contract provisions agreed to by the local Hartford Board of Education and the unions in previous negotiations or awarded by arbitrators in prior arbitration proceedings; or 2) continuing past employment practices of the local Hartford Board of Education (Current law directs arbitrators to consider previous negotiations between the parties and existing conditions of employment); 

·       the arbitrators must give the highest priority to the educational interests of the state, as those interests relate to Hartford’s children, in arriving at their decisions and are to consider other factors in light of such educational interests (Current law directs arbitrators to consider several factors in making their decisions, but under both TNA and MERA, arbitrators must give priority to the financial capability of the affected municipality in their decisions); 

·       the arbitrators are not limited to the last best offers of the parties on the issues in dispute (Under both TNA and MERA, the arbitrators must choose the last best offer of a party, and cannot fashion a third, independent solution); and 

·       the arbitration decision is not subject to rejection by the Hartford city council (Under both TNA and MERA, the local legislative body may reject the arbitration decision by a two-thirds vote, sending the issues back to one more, final arbitration). 

            Use of provisions.  When the trustees took over operation of the Hartford school system in 1997, only two of the twelve bargaining units actually had current contracts in place—the teacher and the principal units.  The other units were operating under contracts that had expired, in most cases a year earlier.  The Office of Attorney General issued an opinion stating contracts that expired before Special Act 97-4 was enacted were not subject to the special collective bargaining provisions.  According to district personnel, this did not prove to be a bar to negotiating those contracts in the spirit of the special act.   

With respect to the teachers’ and principals’ contracts, participants in the process believe that the very presence of the special act provisions aided in the negotiations.  Specifically, a salary reopener for the last year of the teachers contract that expired in June 1999 went to arbitration under the special provisions, and the arbitrator awarded no salary increase. 

Administrative Structure and Board Activities 

Figure I-2 illustrates the overall administrative and operational structure of the board of trustees.  The board interacts with numerous constituencies, each providing input to assist the board in managing the district’s affairs.  The trustees have links with state and local agencies, private sector companies, and non-profit groups.  Although the diagram focuses on the board, these constituencies also interact with the superintendent and school system on a regular basis. 

Table I-2 shows the board’s meeting activity since June 1997.  The board conducts its normal business at “regular” monthly meetings held throughout the year at various schools in the district.  There is a specific agenda for each meeting, and formal votes are taken.  The board is required to maintain a formal record of its proceedings, including attendance and votes cast by members. 

Analysis of the board’s minutes revealed the trustees have met at least once a month since taking control in June 1997.  As Table I-2 shows, meeting attendance on part of the trustees is also very high.  From June 1997 to May 1998, when the board had seven members, attendance at the regular meetings averaged 6.4 members.  Attendance at meetings since the board’s membership was six averaged 5.7 members.  The board experienced similarly high attendance rates for its special and informational meetings as well.   

The typical agenda for regular meetings held by the trustees covers a wide variety of topics relating to the operation and administration of the school system.  A public comment period and reports from students are standard agenda items for regular meetings.  Overall, as the table shows, regular meetings average almost 3 hours, informational meetings just under 2 ½ hours, and special meetings roughly an hour.

Executive sessions are held before each regular board meeting and, on several occasions, before special and informational meetings.  The trustees use the sessions to discuss personnel and legal matters.  On average, executive sessions last between 1 and 2 hours. 

Work of the board is primarily completed using a “committee of the whole” process.  There are times, however, when specific board members serve on committees for particular subject matters (e.g., labor relations/collective bargaining, building, and audit implementation.)  The board also uses outside resources on an as-needed basis to help facilitate its business. 

State Monitors 

            Special Act 97-4 specifically calls for the creation of two state monitor positions for the Hartford public schools.  The monitors are chosen by the state education commissioner and report directly to him.  Currently, there are three persons serving as state monitors -- one full-time, and two half-time.  One monitor was a former interim commissioner of the education department, one is an education consultant within the department, and one was involved in education issues at the community level. 

            According to the special act, the monitors’ main function is to consult with and assist the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools and the superintendent in assessing the progress and needs of the school district.  The act also requires the monitors to secure outside assistance from corporations and universities in helping fulfill the district’s needs.  The monitors are required to meet regularly with the commissioner and superintendent to review the district’s progress and needs.  Monthly follow-up reports are to be prepared by the monitors for the SDE commissioner and State Board of Education, with copies also sent to the board of trustees.  The reports are to note any additional assistance required by the school district. In practice, the monthly meetings occur, although monthly written reports are not produced.

            Quarterly Progress Reports on the Hartford Public Schools.        Beginning October 1, 1997, the state education commissioner and the State Board of Education are required to send quarterly reports to the governor and the legislature’s education committee.  The special act requires the reports to address the operations of the Hartford school district and progress made under the management of the board of trustees.  Quarterly reports are required until the school district is again under the direction of a local board of education.   

The quarterly reports are developed by the state monitors, with final distribution by the commissioner.  The reports are detailed and include information on student achievement, school visits, operation of the school system, and the district’s progress toward fulfilling specific recommendations outlined in the “Hartford Improvement Plan”, a joint effort between school district and the state education department described in the next section. 

            School visits.  As part of their oversight duties, the state monitors have conducted three rounds of visits to each school within the Hartford school district.  The first round of visits, started in late 1997, focused on general observations, the overall physical condition of the schools, and discussions with school staff.  Inspections were made of buildings, classrooms, bathrooms, and grounds during the visits to obtain a baseline overview of the schools.  A facility specialist from the state Department of Education accompanied the monitors on the physical plant inspections.  The monitors detailed their findings in the March 1998 quarterly report.   

            A second round of visits was conducted during the summer of 1998 and at the start of the 1998-99 school year.  The visits concentrated on recent improvements made at individual schools since the monitors’ last visit, progress made in fulfilling various goals adopted by the board of trustees, and facility improvements.  The third round of school visits was made by the monitors during the first and second quarters of 1999.  The monitors asked school personnel and school improvement teams (described later) to identify improvements having the greatest impact upon student success since the monitors’ last visited the schools.  The monitors also asked school personnel and improvement teams to identify their greatest needs for increasing student success and improving the school.   

            The state monitors also visited four of the various six-week summer school programs held during 1999, as well as summer programs held in 1998.  The standard protocol for this summer’s visits included meeting with the school principal and staff to go over a list of questions covering specific areas, as well as a tour of the program.  The monitors also visited the “Parent Power Institute” conducted at the University of Hartford.  The program was for parents with children in the Hartford school system, and included classes covering various professional and personal growth topics.

Return to Year 1999 Studies

Return to Table of Contents