The Art Of Political Smear

In the July 26 edition of the Republican-American, the following was published in the "Brass Tacks" column:

Job with Bureau of Water preceded elected position.

Alderman Ernest M. Brunelli wants everybody to know that he got his job honestly.

Brunelli is a temporary worker for the Bureau of Water, which has been accused of nepotism. The son of superintendent Kenneth Skov and relative of Skov's secretary, Marcy Michaud, both work there too.

When the Board of Aldermen sought an audit of the bureau for its hiring practices, among other concerns, Brunelli said he was deluged by calls from people accusing him of abusing his political power.

But Brunelli got his job in 2004, long before he was elected to the Board of Aldermen.

Although friends with foreman Stephen E. Laccone, Brunelli wasn't hired by him, and isn't related to anybody on staff.

He said he was so upset by the accusations he almost quit.

"I'm not an alderman down there," Brunelli said. "I'm just a worker."

To say I was disappointed in these developments would be an amazing understatement. This, petty, unnecessary harassment of Alderman Brunelli was the result of an article that ran in the July 21 edition of the paper.

While I am not disputing the facts of the article, what bothers me is that certain people will go to such lengths to demonize someone who has held a job for 6 years because he decided to run for the Board of Aldermen 10 months ago. Next they’ll be accusing Alderman Begnal of using political influence to get his teaching job, even though Alderman Begnal was hired as a gym teacher in the 1980’s, and only elected last year. After all, why let facts get in the way of an argument?

I’m further saddened by the fact that the people who seem to be responsible for this maneuver have shown a propensity for attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It is a good thing for the city when a person goes into public service to look out for the tax payers and making sure that everything is done properly. It’s a detriment to the city when people stop focusing on the public, and start focusing on ways to get their name in the newspaper.

I had an opportunity to get to know Alderman Brunelli during last year’s campaign. While I do not know him well, at every event he came across as a friendly gentleman that had the best interests of Waterbury at heart.

I cannot believe that Alderman Brunelli did anything to deserve this abuse from a few political operatives that see a conspiracy behind every corner and trusts absolutely no one.

Fortunately, many of the comments that were posted after the article show that most of the people who commented share my opinion.

Some of the relevant comments, pulled directly from the Republican-American website:

Just a rumor wrote on Jul 21, 2010 11:23 AM:
"...This paper goes to great lengths to demonize employees with little or no facts. Relying on Depillo's rants as facts is ridicules...."

True Waterburian wrote on Jul 21, 2010 2:29 PM:
"...When will this city learn that all that representatives from the Independent(SAY NO) party says is inaccurate and mis truths. I am tired of this paper reporting these statements ase accusations without verifying thier accuracy "

all facts wrote on Jul 21, 2010 7:28 PM:
" It is amazing that Larry D would make accusations of the water department. It is justr retrobution for the superintendent because he suspendedan employee for plowing Depillo's street with city equipment. Laryy utilized city equipment for personal gain. Write about that. "

I think these comments speak for themselves. I hope Alderman Brunelli keeps his head up, and doesn't let this ridiculousness wear him down.

Asking The Right Questions

In the Sunday, July 25 edition of the Republican-American there was a very interesting letter from Board of Education Commissioner Paul D'Angelo.

In the letter Commissioner D’Angelo calls for radical changes in the Waterbury School System. It is his opinion that the status quo is no longer acceptable if Waterbury students are going to succeed in the 21st Century. I agree with Commissioner D'Angelo, however I have some concerns regarding the direction he takes with his proposals.

While I know that serious changes need to be made to our Education Department to ensure all of Waterbury's 18,000 students have the tools they need to succeed in life. I also am one of the first people to praise the teachers and administrators in the school system who bring their best efforts to their jobs every day of the school year.

To truly evaluate a schools performance, you can't just look at one aspect of the school, there is a lot more going on that will never show up on a test. When a district is looking at this much data, you have to make sure you are asking the right questions. Currently the City of Waterbury and the State of Connecticut only looks at the passing rate of students in successive years. While the argument can be made that the scores should improve as the teachers perfect their educational techniques, taking that approach gives the public a very poor view of the true results.

The purpose of the CMT, the CAPT, and the annual review of test results is to show that the schools are doing everything they can to improve our students as they move through the system. With a system as large as Waterbury, however, there are many variables that are well beyond the teachers and administrators control. True reform will only occur when we hold the teachers accountable for the aspects they can influence. Bashing teachers for situations they cannot influence is unfair to everyone.

With that in mind, I encourage the Board of Education to start looking at the questions they are asking when they look at the test results. From my years of scientific study, I have found that asking the right questions is as important as the answers you receive. To illustrate my point, I'll use Wallace Middle School as an example.

1. How many students who took the 8th Grade CMT at Wallace in 2010 took the 6th Grade CMT's in Waterbury in 2008?
2. How many of those students stayed in the Waterbury Public Schools during the 2 years in between?
3. How many of those students improved 1 level (1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc.) between 2008 and 2010?
4. How many of those students improved 2 levels (1 to 3, 2 to 4, etc.) between 2008 and 2010?
5. Did any students degrade 1 level (2 to 1, 3 to 2, etc.) between 2008 and 2010?

These questions are important because they allow us to focus on what is (or is not) working in our schools. If we have a student transfer to Wallace in September of their 8th grade year from Bridgeport (as an example), and the student is reading at a 4th grade level, how can we hold the Wallace teachers solely responsible for the students test scores in March? As the saying goes, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

If we can identify the students that are staying in the school system, and track their results over the course of several years, then we can truly identify what is and isn’t working in our educational system. Only by asking the right questions will we get the answers we need to best serve the students of Waterbury.