Propaganda At Town Expense?—

Town Officials Critical Of School Superintendent’s ‘Budget Update’

By John Voket

A budget “update” sent home in thousands of local students’ backpacks Tuesday violates the spirit of elections enforcement law, according to several local officials. The flyer was fact-checked by a school board official, written by the school superintendent, and paid for by local taxpayers.

While some Board of Education members described the document as a routine and annual rite preceding the final stage of budget deliberations, the Secretary of the State’s Elections Enforcement Division confirmed Wednesday that had the same document been circulated after the annual budget was legally advertised, it would have clearly been illegal.

State officials have suggested the document may still violate the law if the local town attorney determines a standing annual budget date published in the Town Charter, and occurs on the same day every year, constitutes a “legally pending” notification. That decision is expected in the next few days.

Town Clerk Cynthia Simon, who received the notice in her grandson’s backpack, was motivated to contact state officials because no individual or organization took credit for the information, which she believed was manufactured, reproduced, and distributed with taxpayer funds. The town clerk was also concerned that the document amounted to political action propaganda because it plainly calls for those parents receiving it to: “Please vote so the budget will pass on the first referendum this year.”

When contacted by The Newtown Bee Wednesday afternoon, Superintendent Evan Pitkoff said that he wrote and authorized the two-page document to be dispatched to local school offices, reproduced on school copy machines using school paper, and distributed by school staff. Some officials critical of the flyer were miffed because children were used as its delivery messengers, and that the documents were in effect, transported to students’ homes on school buses which are also taxpayer funded.

Legislative Council Chairman Will Rodgers wondered how school board members and other taxpayers would react if the same type of notice was issued by a town-side official.

“How would the Board of Education feel if the town clerk sent a similar notice to residents inserted in their tax bills, calling for voters to increase a town-side appropriation?” he asked after reviewing the document. “This is outrageous. If it is not a technically improper use of public funds, I don’t know what is.”

Ms Simon said she felt similarly.

“I don’t agree using tax dollars to promote or defeat a budget. This came home with children unsigned, so parents have no idea who is sending it,” she said.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said he was awaiting a decision from the town attorney determining whether or not the document is illegal and prohibited by state statutes.

“If it is not technically illegal today, it still violates the spirit of the law,” the first selectman said. “Even if it skirts the letter of the law, it’s clearly using taxpayer dollars to support a referendum vote.”

Finance board Chairman John Kortze weighed in, calling the flyer “divisive and politically motivated,” and condemning school officials, particularly Superintendent Evan Pitkoff, for using taxpayer dollars to create and distribute the document.

“Can the highest paid town employee lobby on the upcoming budget vote one way or the other? Clearly he is,” Mr Kortze said. “You can’t use public funds to buy the paper and town-owned copy machines to reproduce it, school personnel to distribute it and school buses to deliver it.”

Dr Pitkoff downplayed the criticism, characterizing the flyer as nothing more than an innocuous budget update.

“It’s a statement about what has occurred so far [in the budget process],” Dr Pitkoff said. “It advocates for the budget but I don’t think it takes a divisive or political tone.”

School board vice chairman Andrew Buzzi, Jr, said in an email reply for comment that he reviewed the document for Dr Pitkoff before it was sent home with students.

“I did see the flyer, before it was distributed, Mr Buzzi wrote. “Evan [Pitkoff] checked to ensure that the legal questions were answered before distribution.”

Mr Buzzi said that the information contained in the flyer is factual and informational to all parents.

“I see little difference between the factual information contained in this flyer from any other of the many flyers sent home for all manner of school and town events,” he wrote. “The subject happens to be the budget, which of all things we send information home on, effects every parent and every child.”

But fellow board member Paul Mangiafico was apparently unaware of the notification, and that it was authorized for circulation.

“I was not aware that something like this had been handed out, and I really at this point have no comment to make because I have not had a chance to speak to our superintendent or other board members about it,” Mr Mangiafico said. “Who authorized it, who paid for it, the scope of distribution…are of interest to me in addition to its purpose.”

School board member David Nanavaty shared Mr Buzzi’s opinion that the flyer was simply informational, challenging critics to point out a single line that was divisive or political. Mr Nanavaty did acknowledge that according to the letter of the law, the document was permitted for distribution, “until the town’s fiscal authority sets the date for referendum.”

His assertion was apparently validated by the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education.

“CABE stated it is perfectly appropriate,” Mr Nanavaty said, adding that any town officials who were complaining simply “have too much time on their hands.” He said the document served as a simple budget update, and should be considered as such unless the town plans to litigate the issue.

Board of education member Tom Gissen said he has seen all the points articulated in the notice made before. “It’s factually accurate,” Mr Gissen said. “I think it’s counterproductive and unnecessary to quibble over who made what reductions.”

Mr Gissen said he was sorry to see the document circulated as written, however, and regretted that it is causing agitation.

“I hope it won’t become a distraction to what the Board of Finance and Board of Ed are working towards. I hope it hasn’t offended anyone,” he said.

School board vice chairman Lisa Schwartz echoed the sentiments of her fellow board members, saying the piece is a factual representation of actions of the Board of Finance.

“I didn’t see it as contentious,” Ms Schwartz said. “The CABE attorney spoke to the Board of Education and the PTAs. He said the Board of Education and school system can advocate for the budget using their funds.”

She said there was no malicious intent inherent in the flyer’s content.

“The goal was not to cast aspersions on the Board of Finance,” she said. “They are doing their job, as are we.”

The Bee was told school board chair Elaine McClure was vacationing this week, and was unavailable for comment. Ms McClure did not respond to a call soliciting her input on the matter before press time Thursday, March 22, and an email was returned stating the school board chair’s email box was full.

Mr Rodgers said the manipulation of certain facts about the budget process, and decisions made especially by the Board of Finance, reflected a “standard Board of Education trick.”

“It points to an overall reduction and then implies the reduction will apply to a certain activity or controversial line item,” Mr Rodgers said, pointing to one paragraph in the document. “Here it’s applied to the high school. But it glosses over the fact that neither the finance board nor the Legislative Council have line item authority over the school budget by state statute.”

Mr Rodgers was also critical of the lack of uniformity in the information presented.

“When it benefits the [school] board to play out raw numbers and percentages they use both, but you’ll notice that when it doesn’t fully support their agenda they selectively use one or the other,” the council chairman added.