Board Once Again Rejects Anti-Bullying Post

A motion to create a part-time , after split vote at Monday night’s Board of Education meeting.

Since one board member, Marc Rosenberg, was absent from the meeting, the motion went to an eight-member panel—with four members voting in favor of the post and job description and four voting against it.

The position would handle , as well as fielding questions from school anti-bullying specialists and arranging proactive procedures, protocols, and programs for students and staff. A portion of the duties would include planning pro-active programs and activities meant for students, parents and staff.

It’s also a position required by the new state law, and one that’s already been voted down once this year. During the first vote, in September, board members cited a lack of data about the hours spent on the incidents as their reasons for voting against the post.

This time, two of the board members voting against the policy referred to spending an extra $27,000 in Education Jobs grant funds on non-administrative areas.

“Before we turn around after the holidays, we’re talking about the budget process,” Jennifer Haley said. “I feel like we’re going to hire somebody and then a month later, maybe two weeks later, we’re going to talk about whether we’re going to keep them or not. It doesn’t seem proactive to me.”

“I think $27,000 has fallen on our doorstep and there are other ways to spend it than a whole bunch of administrative work.  .  .,” Judy Haas said. “.  .  .We have numerous people in addition to Scott (Rocco) and in addition to this new anti-bullying person who are working on the process, including guidance counselors and school administrators. I might suggest that if we have extra money what we might be doing is paying them overtime and having them work extra hours.

“.  .  .I think if we do have this extra money available and it will be gone in June if we don’t use it then I would like to spend it for direct services to children in terms of guidance or school leadership and not spend it on additional administrative reporting,” she added.

The position had been listed as a January to June 2012 post, meaning the person who filled it—listed on the agenda as the Melinda Maggio, the district’s Life Skills Coordinator—would work until the end of the 2012 school year, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Scott Rocco said.

Other board members felt that the volume of incidents and the time spent investigating each necessitated the position. According to the district’s data, .

“We’ve seen the numbers.  .  .”Greg Gillette said. “.  .  .If this helps, this would be great. We can see if we see a reduction after this. As we go into the budget process further in February and March, if it’s the will of the board to continue this for another year, that’s the time that we make choices.”

“We need this infusion of help now,” he added.

Gillette also referenced the possibility of hiring extra guidance counselors to handle the increased workload, noting it would be a greater cost than the part-time position.

But the motion to create the position and to fill it did not pass when put to vote. Board members Dana Boguszewski,  Haley, Haas, and Thomas Kinst voted against the motion, while Gillette, Thuy Anh Le, Chris Pulsifer and Steven Paget voting in favor of it.