NORWALK, Conn. – To set a positive tone for the interaction of its members, the Board of Education has adopted and signed a new Civility Code of behavior.
The 10-item code is essentially a pledge by the members to act civilly toward each other and the public and to stay focused on providing the best education for the students of Norwalk’s schools.
After last year, when the school system was embroiled in a financial controversy and tempers often ran hot among members, school officials and parents, the board wanted to tone down the level of rancor that occasionally flared up during meetings and exchanges.
“In fairness, I think the board, by and large, has been much more civil in recent months than last year, so hopefully this code is memorializing the way we’ve already been trying to conduct ourselves,” said Chairman Michael Lyons. “We won’t always achieve the goal, but this code should make it easier for us to try.”
All nine members of the board signed the code, which Lyons said grew out of similar pledge elected officials made in Falls Church, Va. He hopes it catches on with other Norwalk boards and commissions.
In recent weeks, members of the Common Council have made an effort to act more civilly toward one another, although the group has not formally adopted a similar code as the Board of Education.
“As I said, this is ‘aspirational’ – it isn’t a policy, it’s a mutual commitment among the board members to try to improve the civility of our conduct,” Lyons said.
The Civility Code states:
As a Member of the Norwalk Board of Education, I will strive to improve education, and to that end I will:
- Attend all regularly scheduled board meetings insofar as possible, and become informed concerning the issues to be considered at those meetings;
- Recognize that I should endeavor to make policy decisions only after full discussion at publicly held board meetings;
- Clearly distinguish opinions from facts. And, render all decisions based on the available and verifiable facts and my independent judgment, and refuse to surrender that judgment to individuals or special interest groups;
- Respect all board members through words and actions, and demonstrate respect for the diverse views of all citizens in our society;
- When advocating for a belief or position, ensure that criticism of opposing viewpoints is expressed as criticism of a position, not a person;
- Be a positive role model for public discourse – practice courtesy, politeness, and consideration;
- Ensure that all sides have a fair opportunity to present their respective positions;
- Work with other board members to establish effective board policies and to delegate authority for the administration of the schools to the superintendent;
- Take no private action that will compromise the board and administration, and
- Remember always that my first and greatest concern must be the educational welfare of the students attending the Norwalk Public Schools.









Comments (19)
@Dwanna:
Sadly, you are absolutely correct!!!
Does this "Civility Code of Conduct" also apply to Mayor Moccia?
What I don't understand though is this: is it not the mayor's responsibility to maintain a sense of order and decency within these meetings, amongst ALL of the members?
I ask, as I attended a meeting at City Hall one evening, and was absolutely *horrified* by the utter lack of respect and indifference shown by Moccia, to not only the council members but also to the public!
I have NEVER felt so embarrassed and ashamed of ANY *elected* official as I do for Moccia!
If this mayor is able sit on his throne and treat others as dirt (shockingly, with absolute impunity), why should ANY member of ANY council be held to a higher standard?
Given that Moccia is unable or incapable of showing others with such respect, or decency, I honestly don't see why holding others to a higher standard would even matter!
Something is fundamentally VERY wrong with each of those BOE members, if they had to sign an agreement to be a decent human being, and treat others with respect and kindness.
I still maintain the Town Clerk handled his situation of theft from the employer much better than the BoE did. The investigation was promptly turned over to the experts and will probably result in an arrest and conviction and no problem from the union.
When you are nominated into the Board of Ed arent these things that you should already know and agree to do? I think it is pathetic that they have to be reminded to be polite and to remember the greatest concern is for the kids.
Shows the benefit of better leadership on the Board of Ed
It's a nice gesture, and a good example. I hope EVERYONE follows through with it and remembers this when the budget issues (and other issues) roll around again.
Morellimom - I agree it is a very nice "gesture", but I'm curious as to what might happen if someone goes off on a tirade? Suspension? Time out? Made to write "I will be polite. I will be respectful." 500 times? Also, will the Daily Voice be reporting it when someone goes off the rails? If so, can we place bets on the odds as to who it might be?
The Common Council should adopt the same set of principles.
lwitherspoon
I agree as the Republicans have had bad attitudes for yeas ..Good point you made lwitherspoon
Accepting a resignation when not doing so, due to union rules, would have cost us far more money in pay and legal fees, was the right (if uncomfortable) thing to do. Restitution was made. It's easy to stay on the moral 'high horse' when you don't have the responsibility to deal with tough situations, and can haughtily comment on them from the sidelines.
Mike
If, in fact, you had the evidence and took the case to the police, and he was arrested and pled guilty, or was convicted, the union would not be much of a problem about him being fired. If, on the other hand, you did not have a case, then maybe it made sense to work out a deal with him. The lesson the school kids learned in this case was not one anyone wanted to teach. As to your "moral high horse" I have a good deal more experience with these issues than most, and I am sticking to my position. If you let the union make decisions you should be making, that is not leadership. I suspect you did not have a union spokesman telling you what the union was going to do, but took advice from a lawyer with no union experience who was looking for the least risk for his client, the BoE, without talking to anyone from the union. Most unions want no part of defending people who get fired for crimes committed against the employer.
Old Timer, you have the advantage on me of anonymity, and the ability to print speculation as if it was fact (not to mention that I have to operate under certain confidentiality obligations that prevent me from revealing everything that went into the investigation). But I can correct some errors in your post above. We did not "let the union make a decision"; we reacted to the reality of the heavy pro-union bias of the State's grievance system. Your "suspicion" is wrong; the head of the union made clear it WOULD support the employee all the way up the appeal chain to the State. The lawyer who advised us, Tom Mooney, is one of the best-respected school system lawyers in the State, with 35 years experience negotiating with unions (he represented us in our victory over the union in the recent contract arbitration). So they key statements in the post above are demonstrably false.
Mike:
Without a conviction, and assurance there would be no criminal charges, a union rep is obliged to threaten to fight a dismisal. especially where the victim has accepted restitution. My "speculation" was based on the probable result if the thief had been arrested and convicted. I agreed, minus an arrest and conviction, you had limited choices, I was arguing there should have been an arrest. Investigations of crimes should be left to the criminal justice system and not handled badly by school system adminstrators. By the time this came to you, too much had already been done by unqualified people and Mooney had an obligation to seek the least risk for the board. I did not intend to criticize Mooney, who obviously made the best of a bad situation.
Old Timer
As regards your comment that "Most unions want no part of defending people who get fired for crimes committed against the employer."
Polselli's Union Head, Tony Ditrio, was quoted in the Norwalk Hour defending what Polselli did, claiming that it wasn't wrong because Polselli didn't try to hide it. Article here:
http://www.thehour.com/news/norwalk/schools/board_of_education/ditrio-technology-director-destroyed-himself-for-nothing-for-stupid-little/article_7491b1d3-bd6e-500b-a375-4cb516aa421a.html
It's worth noting that when Ditrio isn't defending union members who try to use taxpayer funds to buy equipment for their personal aircraft, he serves as the finance chief of Matt Miklave's mayoral campaign.
Accepting resignations from an employee who stole thousands in taxpayer money from the BoE without making a complaint to the police may be carrying the "play nice" policy a bit too far. Think of what that teaches the students who know people who have gone to jail for less. Did he, at least make full restitution ? Is that the new normal the BoE wants to teach ? It is OK to steal, as long as you give it back when you get caught ?
@old timer
I agree - it's troubling, but it sounds like this was the least bad of several lousy choices. The BoE did postpone voting at a prior meeting so they could better inform themselves and evaluate options, and they must have concluded that this was the only option. You will note that the vote was unanimous.
It was also troubling to read Union leader Tony Ditrio's comments claiming to the Norwalk Hour that Mr. Polselli had done nothing wrong because he didn't try to hide his illegal spending. That's the same Tony Ditrio who serves as the finance chief of Matt Miklave's mayoral campaign.
Number 10 ought to be #1, don't you think?
You would think so.