Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Today CT Parents Head To Court Opposing AFT Appointment

    Uploaded by

    Gwen Samuel
    51 views4 pages
    Teacher Union Rights versus Children Educational Rights Pro Se Connecticut Parents Head To Hartford Superior Court Seeking Removal of Meriden Federation of Teachers President to the State Board of Education Citing Conflict of Interest Hartford CT- Three Pro Se Connecticut parents head to Hartford Superior Court for Oral Arguments against the Assistance Attorney General’s office, council for Governor Malloy. The parents filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of Erin D. Benham, President of the Meriden Federation of Teachers and Executive Committee Vice President of the Connecticut American Federation of Teachers to the State Board of Education. Parents cite Conflict of interest The lawsuit HHD-CV14-5038194-S SAMUEL, GWENDOLYN Et Al v. MALLOY, DANNEL P. Et Al, allege in their complaint that the appointment of the AFT Connecticut local president is clearly a conflict of interest because of appearances of graft and quid pro quo for the teachers union's contributions to Governor Malloy's re-election campaign. According to the complaint, before the appointment, the teachers union contributed $10,000 to Governor Malloy’s campaign via the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee and $250,000 to support Governor Malloy through the new Political Action Committee, Connecticut Forward PAC which raises concerns of graft and quid-pro quo. The Democratic Governors Association also donated $1.25 million to the Connecticut Forward PAC. http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHDCV145038194S Parents across the state of Connecticut, led by the independent and grassroots Connecticut Parents Union, introduced a Parent Empowerment bill which became law that allows parents legal power to help improve low performing schools. The state of Connecticut has refused to enforce the law leaving almost 200,000 kids trapped in low performing schools without legal remedy to protect their constitutional educational rights. In 2010, the number of low performing schools identified by the state as not having met adequate yearly progress in reading and math on a whole school level was one hundred and eighty-four (184) and as of April 17, 2013, the state has identified three hundred and fifty (350) schools as not having met adequate yearly progress in reading and math on a whole school level which translates close to 200,000 students, majority of color, English Language Learners, those with disabilities and special needs, and or those children eligible for free/reduced lunch, attending low performing and/or unsafe schools in need of improvement. 2010 list of failing schools http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ10-11/c3.pdf 2013 list of failing schools http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/deps/sgc/listofsgcschools.pdf The AFT Connecticut has a documented history of opposing parents, especially parents of color, special need parents and impoverished families, as they advocate and exercise their legal power to ensure their kids have access to safe and high quality schools. One example of aggressive opposition was by AFT CT holding national trainings on “How to Diffuse Connecticut Parent Trigger” with language such as “Kill Mode”. http://rishawnbiddle.org/outsidereports/aft_parentpower_guide.pdf Instead of holding ineffective teachers accountable for their failure to educate our children, Governor Malloy, with support of elected officials (by their silence), appoints a teachers union president to the State Board of Education. Parent leaders throughout the state support these Connecticut Parents and are outraged that Connecticut Governor Malloy and others (by their silence) would play political games with the constitutional rights and futures of hundreds of thousands of students, mostly of color, low income, special needs. Mother of two, Plaintiff Gwen Samuel said:”The fox cannot impartially guard the hen house by virtue of their need to survive, just as teacher’s union presidents or representatives ca

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Teacher Union Rights versus Children Educational Rights Pro Se Connecticut Parents Head To Hartford Superior Court Seeking Removal of Meriden Federation of Teachers President to the State Board of Education Citing Conflict of Interest Hartford CT- Three Pro Se Connecticut parents head to Hartford Superior Court for Oral Arguments against the Assistance Attorney General’s office, council for Governor Malloy. The parents filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of Erin D. Benham, President of the Meriden Federation of Teachers and Executive Committee Vice President of the Connecticut American Federation of Teachers to the State Board of Education. Parents cite Conflict of interest The lawsuit HHD-CV14-5038194-S SAMUEL, GWENDOLYN Et Al v. MALLOY, DANNEL P. Et Al, allege in their complaint that the appointment of the AFT Connecticut local president is clearly a conflict of interest because of appearances of graft and quid pro quo for the teachers union's contributions to Governor Malloy's re-election campaign. According to the complaint, before the appointment, the teachers union contributed $10,000 to Governor Malloy’s campaign via the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee and $250,000 to support Governor Malloy through the new Political Action Committee, Connecticut Forward PAC which raises concerns of graft and quid-pro quo. The Democratic Governors Association also donated $1.25 million to the Connecticut Forward PAC. http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHDCV145038194S Parents across the state of Connecticut, led by the independent and grassroots Connecticut Parents Union, introduced a Parent Empowerment bill which became law that allows parents legal power to help improve low performing schools. The state of Connecticut has refused to enforce the law leaving almost 200,000 kids trapped in low performing schools without legal remedy to protect their constitutional educational rights. In 2010, the number of low performing schools identified by the state as not having met adequate yearly progress in reading and math on a whole school level was one hundred and eighty-four (184) and as of April 17, 2013, the state has identified three hundred and fifty (350) schools as not having met adequate yearly progress in reading and math on a whole school level which translates close to 200,000 students, majority of color, English Language Learners, those with disabilities and special needs, and or those children eligible for free/reduced lunch, attending low performing and/or unsafe schools in need of improvement. 2010 list of failing schools http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ10-11/c3.pdf 2013 list of failing schools http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/deps/sgc/listofsgcschools.pdf The AFT Connecticut has a documented history of opposing parents, especially parents of color, special need parents and impoverished families, as they advocate and exercise their legal power to ensure their kids have access to safe and high quality schools. One example of aggressive opposition was by AFT CT holding national trainings on “How to Diffuse Connecticut Parent Trigger” with language such as “Kill Mode”. http://rishawnbiddle.org/outsidereports/aft_parentpower_guide.pdf Instead of holding ineffective teachers accountable for their failure to educate our children, Governor Malloy, with support of elected officials (by their silence), appoints a teachers union president to the State Board of Education. Parent leaders throughout the state support these Connecticut Parents and are outraged that Connecticut Governor Malloy and others (by their silence) would play political games with the constitutional rights and futures of hundreds of thousands of students, mostly of color, low income, special needs. Mother of two, Plaintiff Gwen Samuel said:”The fox cannot impartially guard the hen house by virtue of their need to survive, just as teacher’s union presidents or representatives ca

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    51 views4 pages

    Today CT Parents Head To Court Opposing AFT Appointment

    Uploaded by

    Gwen Samuel
    Teacher Union Rights versus Children Educational Rights Pro Se Connecticut Parents Head To Hartford Superior Court Seeking Removal of Meriden Federation of Teachers President to the State Board of Education Citing Conflict of Interest Hartford CT- Three Pro Se Connecticut parents head to Hartford Superior Court for Oral Arguments against the Assistance Attorney General’s office, council for Governor Malloy. The parents filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of Erin D. Benham, President of the Meriden Federation of Teachers and Executive Committee Vice President of the Connecticut American Federation of Teachers to the State Board of Education. Parents cite Conflict of interest The lawsuit HHD-CV14-5038194-S SAMUEL, GWENDOLYN Et Al v. MALLOY, DANNEL P. Et Al, allege in their complaint that the appointment of the AFT Connecticut local president is clearly a conflict of interest because of appearances of graft and quid pro quo for the teachers union's contributions to Governor Malloy's re-election campaign. According to the complaint, before the appointment, the teachers union contributed $10,000 to Governor Malloy’s campaign via the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee and $250,000 to support Governor Malloy through the new Political Action Committee, Connecticut Forward PAC which raises concerns of graft and quid-pro quo. The Democratic Governors Association also donated $1.25 million to the Connecticut Forward PAC. http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHDCV145038194S Parents across the state of Connecticut, led by the independent and grassroots Connecticut Parents Union, introduced a Parent Empowerment bill which became law that allows parents legal power to help improve low performing schools. The state of Connecticut has refused to enforce the law leaving almost 200,000 kids trapped in low performing schools without legal remedy to protect their constitutional educational rights. In 2010, the number of low performing schools identified by the state as not having met adequate yearly progress in reading and math on a whole school level was one hundred and eighty-four (184) and as of April 17, 2013, the state has identified three hundred and fifty (350) schools as not having met adequate yearly progress in reading and math on a whole school level which translates close to 200,000 students, majority of color, English Language Learners, those with disabilities and special needs, and or those children eligible for free/reduced lunch, attending low performing and/or unsafe schools in need of improvement. 2010 list of failing schools http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/circ/circ10-11/c3.pdf 2013 list of failing schools http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/deps/sgc/listofsgcschools.pdf The AFT Connecticut has a documented history of opposing parents, especially parents of color, special need parents and impoverished families, as they advocate and exercise their legal power to ensure their kids have access to safe and high quality schools. One example of aggressive opposition was by AFT CT holding national trainings on “How to Diffuse Connecticut Parent Trigger” with language such as “Kill Mode”. http://rishawnbiddle.org/outsidereports/aft_parentpower_guide.pdf Instead of holding ineffective teachers accountable for their failure to educate our children, Governor Malloy, with support of elected officials (by their silence), appoints a teachers union president to the State Board of Education. Parent leaders throughout the state support these Connecticut Parents and are outraged that Connecticut Governor Malloy and others (by their silence) would play political games with the constitutional rights and futures of hundreds of thousands of students, mostly of color, low income, special needs. Mother of two, Plaintiff Gwen Samuel said:”The fox cannot impartially guard the hen house by virtue of their need to survive, just as teacher’s union presidents or representatives ca

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4

    DKT HHD-14CV-5038194

    GWENDOLYN SAMUEL
    SHKEIA DICKERSON
    LYNDA FAYE WILSON

    SUPERIOR COURT
    JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD

    v
    DANNEL P. MALLOY
    STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
    COMMISSIONER STEFAN PRYOR

    NOVEMBER 6, 2014

    OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE


    Plaintiff files this opposition to the motion to strike filed by Defendants on October 3,
    2014. I.

    Standard of Review

    Because a motion to strike tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint, the court must
    construe all pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. If facts that are
    provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied."
    Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113, 117-18 (2006).
    II.

    Argument
    A.

    Governor Malloy Was Obligated to Avoid Appointment of Any Individual


    to the State Board of Education Who Would Have a Conflict of Interest

    Under Title I of the Code of Ethics for Public Officials, 1-85 a public official,
    including an elected state official, or state employee has an interest which is in substantial
    conflict with the proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest and of his
    responsibilities as prescribed in the laws of this state, if he has reason to believe or expect that
    he, his spouse, a dependent child, or a business with which he is associated will derive a direct

    monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss, as the case may be, by reason of his official
    activity.
    ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED
    TESTIMONY IS NOT REQUIRED
    By appointing Benham the Governor has placed someone on the State Department of
    Education who has a direct conflict of interest. Her constituent organization, The American
    Federation of Teachers, has used union dues to donate $10,000 to Malloys campaign via the
    Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee and $250,000 to support Malloy through the
    new Political Action Committee, Connecticut Forward PAC, which was created by the
    Democratic Governors Association (DGA). The Democratic Governors Association also
    donated $1.25 million to the Connecticut Forward PAC. There will be an inherent conflict
    because Benham will not be able to exercise independent judgment in carrying out her official
    duties as a member of the SDE. There appears to be a direct quid pro quo for the appointment of
    Benham. That is, a seat of the board was obtained through the large financial contribution
    provided to the governors re-election campaign.
    B.

    Governor Malloy Was Obligated to Appoint Members to the State


    Department of Education without Giving Undue Influence to Any One Member

    Connecticut families will not receive equal representation on the State Department of
    Education as a consequence of this appointment. By this appointment Governor Malloy is
    essentially is giving both the AFT affiliate and Benham (who is also a public employee) undue
    influence over the quality of education provided to all children, especially those from poor and
    minority backgrounds.
    The AFT, along with the NEAs Connecticut unit, has worked hard to deny families lead
    decision-making roles in Connecticut public education. Public records establish the direct efforts
    of the Connecticut AFT three years ago to first stop passage of, then water down, the states first

    Parent empowerment law also known as a Parent Trigger. This is about constitutional rights
    being protected and equal representation for all education stakeholders.

    III.

    CONCLUSION

    For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the motion to strike should be
    denied.

    PLAINTIFF
    BY: ____________________________
    Gwendolyn Samuel, PRO SE
    53 Vine Street, Second Floor
    Meriden, CT 06451
    Tel: (203) 443-3203

    CERTIFICATION
    This is to certify that the foregoing Opposition to Motion to Strike was served on
    November 6, 2014 via U. S. mail first class postage prepaid upon the following counsel of
    record:

    Ralph Urban, Assistant Attorney General


    55 Elm Street, P. O. Box 120
    Hartford, CT 06141-0120

    ______________________________
    Gwendolyn Samuel

    You might also like