Faced with mounting criticism over the school board's principal search trip to Arizona, the News-Times education reporter did an interview with Sal Pascarella where the school superintendent took to the defense
Pascarella continued to defend taking assistant high school principals Gary Bocaccio and Jesse Ballenger, and school board members Rachael Austin and Irving Fox, with him to visit the candidate's school.
"We're going to pay $140,000 for the job, so we want to be sure," Pascarella said Thursday. "Because we've had such a high turnover (of leaders) at the high school, it was important to have veteran high school administrators there.
"In 10 years, we have had five principals at the high school. I needed to have their (assistant principals') input and their eyes."
Pascarella also said the district saved money by not hiring a search firm.
Robert Rader, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, said a CABE search firm may charge as much as $20,000, depending on the scope of the search -- which includes site visits.
"In many cases, the pool of people available to take the jobs is small," Rader said. "It's becoming harder and harder to find people in Connecticut. The truth is there is salary compression."
Principals make more money than teachers, but they have more responsibilities and work much longer hours. The same is true for the difference between principals and superintendents, he said.
Boughton, who was a social studies teacher at the high school for nearly 14 years before entering politics, said he knows for a fact there were "internal candidates who were discouraged from applying" for the job. "That's a problem," he said. "I know these individuals and I know they are capable of leading that school."
Hopefully, this alarming charge from the mayor will be addressed soon. Until then, you can read the entire story with Superintendent Pascarella over at the News-Times.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.