Support for extending Dr. Lucero's Contract (AGAIN) - June 2023

Hello Stamford Board of Education,

I would like to, once again, voice my support for extending the contract of Dr. Lucero, as I have heard this might come on the June agenda.  Aside from the reasons that I have laid out in previous correspondence for keeping Dr. Lucero, there is another equally important reason to have continuity and consistency at the head of our schools. 

After speaking with a member of the Board of Finance this weekend, they reiterated the need to have a strong leader running our schools who is behind the much-needed infrastructure plan that will dominate our city landscape budgets for the next 10+ years.  If we were to allow Dr. Lucero to leave, we run a significant risk of jeopardizing the entire infrastructure plan that has been laid out and so far, approved by the city and state.  There is no guarantee that a new superintendent would recognize the need or support the current plan, which could cause a massive and costly reevaluation of the entire initiative.  This scenario will cost both time and money, neither of which we can afford as demonstrated by Representative Cottrell here:

 

“In 2009 there was a report that showed the schools needed $174 million in repairs, and less than half that was funded,” Cottrell said. “What was a $174 million problem is turning into a $600 million problem because it was not dealt with promptly. … When we try to go cheap on school repairs, it hits us later.”

Finally, I would like to publicly applaud Joshua Esses for publicly acknowledging that he would likely support renewing the superintendent’s contract.  No person is ever going to be able to satisfy or please all members of our Board of Education, nor are they going to make decisions that please 136,000 residents and 17,000 students but recognizing that we need consistency and continuity to follow the path that the current administration has laid out, will improve the district.  That is a statement I whole-heartedly support.   

World Series Champions 1969 - present (my lifetime)

 World Series Championships in my lifetime (1969-present)

NY Yankees – 8 (1977, 1978, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000. 2009)

Boston Red Sox - 4 (2004, 2007, 2013,2018)

Oakland Athletics – 4 (1972, 1973, 1974, 1989)

Cincinnati Reds – 3 (1975, 1976, 1990)

Los Angeles Dodgers – 3 (1981, 1988, 2020)

San Francisco Giants - 3 (2010, 2012, 2014

St. Louis Cardinals – 3  (1982, 2006, 2011)

Atlanta Braves – 2 (1995, 2021)

Baltimore Orioles – 2 (1970, 1983)

Florida Marlins – 2 (1997, 2003)

Houston Astros - 2 (2017, 2022)

Kansas City Royals – 2 (1985, 2015)

Minnesota Twins – 2 (1987, 1991)

New York Mets – 2 (1969, 1986)

Pittsburgh Pirates –2 (1971, 1979)

Philadelphia Phillies – 2 (1980, 2008)

Toronto Blue Jays – 2 (1992, 1993)

Arizona Diamondbacks – 1 (2001)

Chicago Cubs - 1 (2016)

Chicago White Sox - 1 (2005)

Detroit Tigers – 1 (1984)

Los Angeles Angels - 1 (2002)

Washington Nationals - 1 (2019)

The reality of a new Stamford Superintendent

 Stamford has a history of turning over superintendents every 5 years or so. Assuming we continue down the current path, we are on the verge of running another one out of town.  We will need to go through the process and cost of replacing the role without any real consideration of the timing and consequences of putting another person in that role.  

Let’s start with some basic facts. In a city of ~135,000 people, no superintendent is going to please all of the people. Nor will they please all elected officials in either political party across the various elected boards. Nor will they be able to please all of the teachers or their union.  So maybe we can agree that no superintendent candidate is going to be perfect or acceptable to all constituents or stakeholders in our diverse city.  None of the issues that we currently face are unique to Stamford and are most likely a direct result of a global pandemic which impacted the entire world, not just Stamford or CT or the USA.

I would like to ask those who are so hellbent on ending Dr. Lucero’s tenure a few questions…

• What exactly are we going to achieve by bringing in a new superintendent? 

• How is someone new going to make the changes that the disgruntled citizens, parents, politicians, and teachers are expecting? 

• Having run so many superintendents out of town, who do you think we are going to get to take over that is going to be better than Dr Lucero?

• Why do you think a new superintendent, most likely an outsider, is going to fix all that ails the district?

• Is there an internal candidate you think will succeed where others have failed?

• Who is going to want to come here under these circumstances?

• How much do you think a superintendent should be compensated for running our district? 

Here is what will most likely happen after the next extension is rejected later this year, with Dr Lucero currently scheduled to depart in June 2024 though it is possible that she leaves sooner, as she will be a very viable candidate for another district. If this happens then this will require an interim superintendent for at least one year.  We will begin a lengthy and costly (unbudgeted) search process beginning as soon as July 2023.  After the interview process and negotiations, then we will have someone who is most likely not going to be familiar with Stamford. 

A new superintendent will take at least 2-3 years to assess the situation and to see firsthand what the issues are before even developing any kind of plan to address them.  This assumes that no new issues will have surfaced during this time period.  Any new issues identified during this assessment period will only add additional time before any plan can be formulated and implemented.  Once the assessment is complete, then the superintendent will need to get approval and funding.  This process requires going through not 1, not 2, but 3 elected boards, and they will need to get through this process annually.  We all know it is virtually impossible to get a budget through this process unscathed.  Expecting a newcomer to plan and fund this kind of multi-year assessment during their first few years of their tenure is ludicrous and unrealistic

Even after the assessment is completed, approved, and funded, they will need to spend the next 2-3 years implementing the plan and measuring the impact of these changes.  From there it will take at least another 2-3 years to adjust the plan based upon the initial results before we can begin to see real progress or results.  This type of transformation most likely won’t result in significant changes until year 5 or 6 or about 2030, at the very earliest.  That means our current kindergarteners would be in Middle School or High School before any significant change can be implemented.  

History shows us we don’t have the appetite or attention span or patience to allow anyone that much time.  We expect immediate results which are absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic. By the time 5 years have passed, parents, teachers and elected officials will once again become dissatisfied, asking the same questions and/or raising other concerns and will be ready to throw the new superintendent under the bus that will be driving them out of town.  

We will then repeat the same process again and again because they are not meeting (our impossible) expectations and assume the next person will fix our schools, forgetting all that came before.  It is like we are perpetually doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Isn't it time to break that cycle?  

By no means do I think Dr Lucero is perfect, but she successfully navigated a global pandemic less than 1 year into her tenure, has demonstrated a knowledge of the city process, is the only person in 20 years that has developed and began to implement an infrastructure plan and is already invested in all of our schools’ children, she has also been highly visible, present at forums, sporting events, school performances etc.

Rather than driving her out of town, which is almost inevitable now, let’s ask her to put together an actionable plan to address the issues that the community is upset about and give her an opportunity to develop a plan to address those issues.  At least if we have a plan and remain dissatisfied with her performance we can hand a plan to a new superintendent to review and implement, saving us time and money. Not renewing her contract for another year only kicks the can down the road for another 5-10 years.

 

Another Valentine's Day - Another Mass Shooting

Another Valentines Day Another Mass Shooting

Slaughter in the elementary schools

Slaughter in our high schools

Slaughter on college campuses

Slaughter at a convenience store

Slaughter at a dance club

Slaughter on a farm

Slaughter in the stores

Slaughter in the supermarkets

Slaughter at our parades

Slaughter at our religious center’s

We cannot talk about gun regulation

We won’t support mental health initiatives

What can we do to stop this epidemic?

KFF reports: Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

For the record I support the second amendment. I am not for banning guns. Many friends hunt and feed their families. Some friends have guns for protection. I don’t want a gun registry forcing every gun owner to declare their collection or personal arsenal. Responsible stable people should be allowed to own guns.

A few questions I have that ought to be asked and perhaps discussed:

Do they need military grade weapons?

Should they be required to have insurance to own a gun similar to driving a car?

Should they be required to report their guns when they are stolen?

Should training be mandatory? The NRA used to be all about training and safety before they became a PAC for the gun manufacturers.

If we can’t talk about what can be done and if we won’t support the people who have mental issues and are prone to violence than we have conceded to accept the random acts of violence that are occurring way too frequently in the country. We are accepting that every time we go out a person with a gun could end our life or the the life of a spouse, a child, a parent, a friend or a complete stranger. Is this what we have become and allow?

I’m tired of waking up every morning and seeing these reports. I’m tired of going to bed worried about my kids, my mother, and random strangers that have to suffer this way. Is this the America we want? Is our individual freedom so much greater than the safety of our citizens?

This is not a great way to a start off Valentine’s Day which is supposed to be about love and caring (even if it is a Hallmark holiday and made up for commercial purposes).

So carry on because I doubt that anything will change and another mass shooting will happen again. I will be outraged and sad and disappointed again. Some will offer thoughts and prayers others will be shocked, devastated or sad. I accept this is our fate as we can no longer confront this issues because of our political divides grow deeper and larger with compromise, conversation and discussion being dirty words falling from our national discourse.

Travesty of Democracy in Stamford CT

 To Stamford Advocate

February 7, 2023

The process that the Board of Representatives followed to fill the empty Board of Education seat was an absolute travesty of democracy.  At no point did citizens have any opportunity to comment publicly, They did not adhere to the will of the voter, they were unduly influenced /hoodwinked by a vocal minority and a teachers union who made no effort to evaluate all candidates or actually poll their members before an endorsement was made. 

It is obvious that the Board of Representative’s process is broken.  It has been proven to be  biased, skewed and absolutely not transparent to the public.  The fact that there was never a public hearing is unbelievable and quite a sad statement about those claiming to represent us. There weren't any formal nominees at the time of the January meeting so there was no opportunity for the public to support any candidate.  Last night, the public was prevented from speaking until after the  vote, but what is the point of a public statement if we the public cannot speak about an issue prior to being voted upon?  Heaven forbid someone from the public might actually say something that made someone on the board reconsider their position. Or maybe the vote should have happened in March giving the representatives time to digest and think about each of the candidates instead of rushing through the nomination process. 

There is a process and a precedent that should be followed which again the Board of Representatives chose to ignore in order to fulfill this vacancy.  As the replacement candidate has to be a democrat, the Democratic City Committee met with multiple candidates and overwhelmingly nominated one candidate.  The DCC is made up of people who were elected to represent the citizens of Stamford.   The historical precedent is that the Board of Representatives would accept this nominated candidate and then appoint them to the vacant seat without controversy.  However, the members of the appointments committee chose to nominate another individual then spent 3 hours interviewing her for which she was clearly coached to answer ahead of time. 

The candidate nominated by the appointments committee also has a very vocal minority who support her. This group has a Facebook page that is notorious for bullying and kicking out anyone who shares an opposing viewpoint. They do not speak for the majority of parents and citizens of Stamford, repeatedly struggling to get 500 signatures when they create online petitions.  

Let me illustrate how small of a group this really is:  

·       in a city of ~130k, 500 people represent 00.3% of the entire population. 

·       In a school district with ~17k students and if we assume 1.5 parents per student (25k) than that same 500 represents approximately 2% of the parent population

This group, in conjunction with the teachers union have been spamming the board of representatives with emails and phone calls in support of the alternative candidate, giving the impression they are being flooded by concerned citizens, when in fact it was simply a successful marketing campaign which a majority of representatives bought hook, line and sinker

Speaking of the teachers union, the Stamford Educators Associate (SEA) has been pulling plenty of shenanigans during this vacancy process.  The SEA executive committee unilaterally decided to endorse a single candidate, before any other candidates had even decided to come forward, and then refused to even interview any other candidates including the one ultimately nominated by the DCC.  The SEA executive committee also failed to poll their own members. There are plenty of teachers who were appalled by this action, regardless of who they supported. The union is supposed to represent their members and it begs the question of how they can endorse a candidate without the input of their members.  Once again this is a small minority claiming to represent what is best for the majority.  This process smells like month old fish.

Members of the Board of Representatives also said they were overwhelmed by an outpouring of support by teachers, which is not surprising considering the SEA executive committee spammed members of their union and other local unions with a prefilled form that would automatically submit a letter to the board of representatives in support of the alternative candidate.  In my world, that is good marketing with a good response. 

This begs the question of what percentage of teachers actually reached out via this method?  I am guessing this has skewed the perception of what teachers really want and led many members of the Board of Representatives to believe the alternative candidate had more teacher support than it actually did.  Some teachers wrote to support the mainstream candidate or oppose the alternative candidate, but any student of marketing will tell you it is much easier to participate when someone makes it easy for you, and that is exactly what the SEA did for a subset of its members who agreed with the executive committee.  The rest of the members had to fend for themselves, and had no formal way to wager a complaint with the union or have an alternative mechanism to express any different opinion other than that of the SEA executive committee. 

In the end, none of this matters since a rebel group of representatives did as they saw fit based upon their own preconceived perceptions and opinions, disregarding the actual 2021 vote totals, the vote of the DCC, and ultimately the will of the people.  After witnessing this meeting and the incoherent comments of many of our representatives, I believe their decision stinks to high heaven and I’m hoping their decision doesn’t wind up costing the taxpayers more money in lawsuits revolving around hostile work environments.  Time will tell. 

Sincerely,

Jeff Herz