A Straightforward Question

Goes Unanswered

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to Dr Pitkoff’s recent perfect mark for “high standards of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal and professional matters.”

I have been deeply involved in the pay-to-participate conflict and I would like to share some brief opinions. The “compromise proposal” was never shown to any member of the student body before it was brought before the school board and subsequently was said to have full student backing. Additionally I would like to state that I filed a citizen’s request for information (this legally must be responded to). I did have several questions answered in a timely manner by the NHS administration. On the other hand the question that required the superintendent to respond to has been neglected for over three weeks. The question was very simple. “How does the usage of the pay-to-participate funds not violate the school board’s bylaws specifically Section 3-401.1 part III?”

After doing some research I found that money might be spent in ways that may correspond to the “expressly prohibited” expenditures, such as maintenance and equipment. I just wanted to know how or why Dr Pitkoff and subsequently the Board of Education failed to answer this straightforward question.

Avoiding this question may imply that my notion of faulty money handling is correct. It is a mistake to act in this manner; it fails to help relations with students. Moreover, speaking on behalf of myself and other students, I feel it would be more appropriate if our esteemed superintendent with such high marks could respond to a simple question on how the school board may be infringing upon their own bylaws.

Michael Compagnoni

Senior, Newtown High School

3 Old Farm Hill Road, Newtown                           December 2, 2003