BOE Termination of Osunde

Dr. Uyi E. Osunde Termination Update

Editor’s Note: In last week’s Stratford Crier we noted that Board Chair Mike Henrick’s letter to Dr. Osunde was shared with the Board of Education members, but marked as Confidential and Not shared with the public. The Stratford Crier requested information regarding the letter from several sources, but because it was marked ‘Confidential’, it could not be shared with us. However, Board Chair Henrick released information on the contents to the Hearst Connecticut Media Group, surprising BOE members.

The following information was published by the Connecticut Post:

STRATFORD — The lawyers who investigated Superintendent Uyi Osunde found evidence he took out-of-state trips without authorization, frequently arrived late to work and delegated many of his job duties to subordinates, among other lapses, according to a summary of their findings. 

The accusations were included in a three-page letter Board of Education Chair Michael Henrick sent to Osunde last week that outlines the reasons the panel is considering firing the still-suspended schools chief. 

“These added duties overburdened already busy individuals, causing stress and frustration on their part, risking burnout, and taking away from their other duties,” Henrick wrote. “While assigning duties to your staff is generally within your rights, given your excessive travel, lateness/leaving early, your actions in shifting your responsibilities to your cabinet were not reasonable, and a shirking of your own responsibilities.”

The letter, obtained by Hearst Connecticut Media Group through an open records request, sums up the findings of the now-finished probe into Osunde, which was launched late last year after he was arrested on a since-dismissed misdemeanor charge in connection with a domestic dispute. 

In case you missed it, here is Dr. Osunde’s response to that July 3, 2024 letter from Board Chair Michael Henrick:

Dr. Osunde: For some time, Stratford Republicans on the Board and in Town Administration have been determined to remove me as Superintendent for partisan, discriminatory, and retaliatory reasons. After I was hired as Superintendent three years ago, Michael Henrick and other members of the Board majority ran as a block to “take back” the Board. When I acted to protect our students and advance the interest of our public schools by opposing the actions of Stratford’s Town Administration to decrease funding for the public schools as the student population became more racially diverse, and also challenged the racial bias reflected in public statements against me by Michael Henrick and a local Republican party leader, the Stratford Republicans became even more resolute in their determination to punish me. Once the Republicans gained majority control of the Board in December 2023, the newly formed Board launched a baseless campaign—that would play out for almost 200 days—to terminate my contract, assassinate my character, and destroy my reputation. 

In order to achieve their objectives, the Board’s majority relied on a sham investigation to create illegal and/or pretextual reasons to support their pre-determined outcome. I was not interviewed as part of the investigation and, despite our requests, the Board has still not provided us with all of the information that they supposedly relied upon to support the actions against me. With respect to the incident involving the police that Mr. Henrick’s letter seizes upon, there is no allegation that I physically hit anyone nor was the alleged statement reported even allegedly made on the evening of the dispute. The charges against me were quickly dismissed by the Court, without objection from the prosecutors. If there was any credible evidence that I was a danger to anyone, that would not have happened. There are reasons why Connecticut law prohibits employment actions based on charges that are dismissed and other erased criminal history information.       

Over the last three years, the positive narrative across the State of Connecticut about what has been happening in the Stratford Public Schools would contradict these weak and inconceivable allegations regarding inefficiency, incompetence, and ineffectiveness, etc. I led the Stratford Public Schools, one of the top 20 largest school systems in Connecticut, through the most volatile peaks in the pandemic. Under my leadership, Stratford Public Schools has experienced improved outcomes on the SAT, Advanced Placement test and other metrics. I have also created programs that respond to climate and culture, improved the safety infrastructure of our district, balanced the student residency grievances that Mr. Henrick has long held, advanced and advocated for budgets that kept the workforce intact, led the construction of a new strategic plan with a new vision and mission, initiated the study of redistricting (which is currently being mishandled), and improved family and community relations. It would be impossible for us to achieve these results and outcomes if the allegations that I was ineffective, inefficient, insubordinate, and dishonest, etc. were even remotely true.

It is clear that I am being singled out and subjected to a level of scrutiny unlike any other previous Stratford Superintendent. The discriminatory and retaliatory nature of this process is palpable, and the adverse impact is real. 

We look forward to stating the facts through the appropriate legal processes.

Latest Legal Filing by BOE

Attorneys defending the Stratford Board of Education in a discrimination lawsuit brought by suspended Superintendent Uyi Osunde want to bar his lawyers from speaking to former board members.

Board of Education attorneys on record are: Raymond J. Rigat on behalf of Kristen Bedell, Michael Henrick, Sean Kennedy, William O’Brien, Stratford Board of Education;  Richard J. Buturla on behalf of Kristen Bedell, Michael Henrick, Sean Kennedy, William O’Brien, Stratford Board of Education; Ryan P. Driscoll on behalf of Kristen Bedell, Michael Henrick, Sean Kennedy, William O’Brien, Stratford Board of Education.  All attorneys are with Bercham & Moses law firm.

Board attorneys filed a motion last week seeking to prevent Osunde’s lawyers from interviewing six former board members as part of the suit, including some who have publicly defended the embattled schools chief.

“These former members have been privy to executive sessions concerning legal matters and should not be placed in a situation where they may provide opposing counsel with a windfall of privileged information,” the lawyers wrote in a nine-page motion. 

In the recently filed motion, the board’s lawyers claimed any potential discussions between the superintendent’s counsel and the six former members could risk exposing confidential information. They asked a judge to issue a protective order prohibiting any “ex parte communication.”  

 “The plaintiff is perfectly within his rights to take their depositions, where the board’s counsel can object to questions calling for the disclosure of any privileged matters,” the board’s lawyers noted. 

The board attorneys, a group led by Richard Buturla of the Milford-based law firm Berchem Moses PC, argued professional conduct rules prevent lawyers from communicating about a legal issue with individuals represented by another lawyer without their permission.    

Furthermore, they claimed the former board members continued to represent the board even after their term ended since they were involved in private discussions about the superintendent’s contract negotiations and annual evaluations. 

“Here, the six former board members were in a position to have participated in executive sessions discussing employment decisions and pending litigation matters, including issues pertinent to this case,” the attorneys wrote. “As such, they ‘continue to personify’ the Board of Education even after the end of their relationship.” 

Todd Steigman, Osunde’s attorney, claimed the board attorney’s motion “advances erroneous legal arguments” unsupported by the facts of the case. 

Steigman said in the memo that a protective order would significantly prejudice Osunde by preventing his attorneys from speaking with important witnesses outside the presence of opposing counsel and without resorting to a deposition.

“Defendants’ counsel has confirmed that he does not represent the former board members,” Steigman wrote, noting that none of the members were on the board when Osunde was placed on leave and have not participated in any attorney-client privileged meetings about the ongoing litigation. 

The former board members in question include Andrea Corcoran, Amy Wiltsie, Janice Cupee, Allison DelBene, Vincent Faggella and Robert DeLorenzo. Corcoran and DelBene previously chaired the panel, and Corcoran and Cupee have publicly supported Osunde during his suspension

In an emailed statement sent this week, Corcoran expressed frustration at the now-finished investigation into Osunde and defended him against accusations that he neglected his duties. She described him as a leader with strong moral character and an impressive work ethic. 

“I am saddened and deeply troubled by this ‘investigation,’ and find it to be not only a waste of resources that would be so much better spent on our students but, also, a political witch hunt, aimed at eliminating a leader who dared to stand up for our students above our politicians,” Corcoran said.

Editor’s note: Taxpayers will not only be paying for the attorney fees, but should Dr. Osunde win his lawsuit, will be paying the judgement fee levied by the courts.

RESIDENT RESPONSES

Note:  These resident responses were not individually selected comments, but taken as a random group from Nextdoor and Facebook. We invite your thoughts in the ‘Comments’ section following the article, or in a letter-to-the editor.

Source :  Nextdoor

Sasha L:  “Someone posted the CT post article on the letter sent to Osunde. The one that was marked confidential but Henrick leaked it to the CT Post. Until now there has been no transparency by the board and it’s clear to see why….this attempt to terminate on things that should have been covered in a job review is laughable. The board admits they didn’t know these things were happening and spend a ridiculous amount of money to investigate. Why? Partial racism is evident, and it also appears to be a witch hunt. The claims made are not something that should be worth termination. The fact the town spent tens of thousands of dollars to do this investigation is gross considering they didn’t want to fund schools and raised our sewer bill. What’s even more disgusting is the $145,000 that was put out to attorneys to represent the town and also the four members of the board in the lawsuit rightfully filed by Osunde. Why are our tax dollars going out to pay for the defense of racism and individuals, even if their term ends? Even if you don’t have children, you should be irate at this ridiculous use of your tax dollars.”

Jim J.:  “your statement sounds political Most businesses if you make unauthorized trips if you are late to work and if you leave early are offenses that you can be terminated for i don’t know much about contracts though but Connecticut is an employment at Will state which means has an employee I can quit with no notice and the employer can terminate you with no notice your statement about the sewer taxes it’s inaccurate because the sewer board is separate from the town budget and the increase was voted to be approved 10 to zero by both parties”

Sasha L to Jim:  “I don’t believe politics belong on the BOE. I also didn’t get into politics in my post, so why did you take it that way? Politics muddy everything and makes it about adult nonsense instead of the true welfare of the children. Why are we begging for funds for education and over 145k is being earmarked to protect BOE members in legal costs? Where is the outrage over that?”

Jim J. to Sasha:  “I have been open minded on posts on this, but of other people are strongly bringing in politics Yes, you’re correct. The board of ed should have nothing to do with politics but for some reason it is and the reason why 145,000 is being spent because they represent the town i been told by many long-term residences that this towns board of education system has been messed up for decades which is sad”

Sasha to Jim: “this whole debacle with the SI shouldn’t be happening in the first place. He was cleared of wrongdoing but certain people wanted to dig for any reason to get him out. Unfortunately some board members got caught making racist statements and it’s now a legal issue where the town is defending it at a ridiculous price.”

Jim J. Sasha:  “yea the whole thing is a mess have not heard any one say anything about racist comments at a board meeting but if it happened and there’s proof they should be thrown off”

Editor’s Note to All:  There is no recourse—they are elected members and cannot be “Thrown Off” “Replaced” or “Recalled”.

Carolyn Sinnott to Jim: “ I think her point was that all of the offenses outlined should have been addressed at a job review. Shame on them if they didn’t know what was going on. The town shouldn’t have to spend that kind of money on a “paid investigation” and thousands more on lawyer fees. Who was his direct boss? That person or people should have done the investigation like any other business. If those things are true, I agree he should be terminated.”

Jim J. Carolyn: “I don’t know if he answers to the board the mayor or both it would be interesting to know from the readings it seems like he answers to the board

Carolyn SinnottJim  “I will research that because I’m now very interested in who he reports to in town. Have a good rest of your night.

Tom KeaneCarolyn:  “Wouldn’t the Superintendent’s “direct boss” be the Board of Ed? Aren’t they elected private citizens who are not at the schools HQ all day, every day? Unless one of the Superintendent’s underlings reported malfeasance how exactly would the Board learn of it absent an investigation?

Kevin Mathews:  “I want to know why Janet Robinson’s expense reports were not looked at like this. Because she’s a White female or because Henrick, O’Brien, Bedell and Kennedy have an ax to grind. CT law says you need to reinstate after a not guilty verdict is entered.

Aisha Deangelo:  “Partial racial? Its beyond that. I have 4 biracial children and I have taught them that the world is theirs regardless of race. This looks like a losing battle. This man’s result should speak for itself. I have yet to hear a valid reason why they have so much contempt for this man. I was on the BOE as a parent for Derby when my children were younger in the 90’s and we never didn’t get along to this degree. Dr. Tracey made me feel heard. We stood as one together. He was very much like Supt. Osunde. This man’s personal business which in the end didn’t come to pass hasn’t even come to play here. They haven’t even had a discussion with”

Source:  Facebook Stratford’s Parent’s Page

Matt Cerrone: “ From article, published last night…Lawsuit response

Filed on April 10 in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Osunde 31-page lawsuit alleges that the school board, including Republican members Kristen Bedell, Henrick, Sean Kennedy and William O’Brien, have “abused their authority and kept Dr. Osunde on ‘administrative leave’ for months while they have wasted taxpayer funds pursuing a specious ‘investigation’ against Dr. Osunde.”

“Defendants have also manufactured, publicly disclosed, and/or ratified, numerous pretextual justifications for their continued refusal to allow Dr. Osunde to return to work and to continue their discriminatory and retaliatory investigation against Dr. Osunde,” the lawsuit states.

As an example of alleged bias and excessive party control of the defendants, the lawsuit claims that Osunde and the then-school board chairperson were excluded from town officials’ meetings that helped change state law in May 2022. The change made Stratford the only municipality excluded from the state’s mandatory minimum budget requirement. The MBR requires Connecticut towns to allocate at least as much funding to schools as was provided in the previous year, the lawsuit states.

In another alleged incident of bias, the lawsuit claims that Stratford Republican Town Committee Chairman Louis DeCilio issued a press release before a recent election saying that Henrick, Bedell and Kennedy would not attend a Greater Bridgeport League of Women Voters forum because the league “required proof of vaccination status for members of the public to attend other forums in a different town other than Stratford.” It also had out-of-town moderators who were also “partisan elected Democrats.”

During his first year as superintendent, Osuna began speaking out against the GOP-controlled mayor’s office and town council for cutting school funding as the district’s minority student population was increasing. Rated the fourth most diverse public school system in the state, more than 70% of Stratford’s students identify as students of color, the lawsuit reads.

The suit claims that DeCilio and Henrick “falsely claimed that [Osuna] was trying to ‘intimidate’ and ‘scare’ through ‘threats’ and ‘bullying’ in statements that Osuma made.”

“The racist undercurrent of the language and tone used by Defendant Henrick and Louis DeCilio was obvious to Plaintiff, a Black man who stands at six feet three inches tall and approximately 250 pounds,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit further claims that the defendants persistently voted against Osuna’s new contracts out of bias against him and that Henrick once said he was only hired as superintendent because he was “a black jock.”

Prior to the Republicans gaining majority control over the school board in the November elections, Osuna got positive reviews from the board for his management of schools and the district’s academic improvements. Hired in March 2021, Osunde’s contract was extended in August 2023 for three years.

Upon his arrest, the board’s Republicans allegedly launched a smear campaign and Henrick “wrongly implied that Plaintiff’s presence as Superintendent and on school district property represented a threat to the safety and well-being of the students and the integrity of their educational environment,” the lawsuit states.

Yet when the charge was dismissed, a prosecutor speaking at Osuna’s hearing characterized him as a “stand up person” and told the court that Osuna did “nothing physical” in the case, according to the suit.

As of Tuesday, Osunde and his attorney had not responded to the letter. He is entitled to 15 days to request a hearing in response to the letter, and the board will hold a hearing within 30 days, Henrick wrote.The federal lawsuit and complaint to the state are pending.”

Sasha MIchelle to Cliff Germain “Clearly the wrong individuals are representing our BOE. They should be held to the same if not higher standard because they affect the lives of Stratford’s students.  One member got up to plead for leniency for a man who tried to solicit sex from a 13 year old online, showed up with a “kill kit” in the car, and was caught by Chris Hansen who was filming “to catch a predator”. The BOE member asked for leniency.  One board of Ed member lies about a stabbing in a school (which never happened) at a meeting with the SI and parents to make the SI look bad. When asked for proof of his claim he declined. Multiple members have made racist comments that have been overheard in town.  And then there’s the guy who barely speaks.

Sasha MIchelle: “Dr. Uyi Osunde deserves our support then. He shouldn’t be left to deal with this gross misconduct by radicals on the BOE. Is there anything that can be done as a concerned parent and resident?

Cliff Germain: “email the acting superintendent and all members of the BOE. There will be an upcoming hearing. Osunde is entitled to a hearing and can choose public or private. I very much believe he will go public and if so, the more people who go to support the better.

Sasha Michelle:  “Appears $70,000 has been paid in legal fees for the BOE members and an additional $145,000 was moved over to pay more…with Pam saying they will most likely need to ask for more money. We’re stuck paying the legal fees even if their term ends.  Listen around the 4 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/live/DZ-Z-MVQGYI?si=mwxn9s5PWQzotP60

Sarah Donaldson Crolla:  “a lot of parents are unaware or not on FB. Parents begging for funds for ALPHA and librarians, meanwhile we are paying legal bills for these folks.

We need more qualified members, for sure. Our schools are consistently under-performing, and the taxpayers are footing the bill for racist investigations. It is appalling.”

Reply to Sarah Donaldson Crolla:  “some of it does go for sped legal, employee grievances etc. so some of that does go to other things. With that said, my understanding is 70k was paid for the lawsuit with the BOE and the 4 individuals listed, but 145k was moved over in June to cover expected bills but if you listen to the video of the meeting I posted above, you’ll hear Pam explain they will need more money and will need to ask for it later.  Why are we paying for legal bills of individuals and get this, we have to pay them even when their term ends”

Christine Halverson:  “What the hell is happening in this town?  I almost hate to say this, but it’s going to hell in a hand basket… Not the town I moved into almost 30 years ago…I almost wish I had stayed in my original home town. It is really sad…”

Sasha MIchelle to Christine:  “politics. Dirty ones. I’m a firm believer that politics don’t belong on the BOE because it ruins everything and takes the focus off the kids. The calls are coming from higher up and the people making the decisions on the BOE are towing that line, at the expense of children.  We now only have 4 librarians for 8 schools. We’re hiring tutors for book exchange.  No money for the children but hundreds of thousands are used for legal expenses?

Megan Booth:  “It’s actually way more than that figure. In June I believe it was reported that the boe asked for additional legal funding on top of the funds that had been used up. I may be incorrect I. My memory, but I think the request was for 145k, and I heard that there previously had been 300k in the account. Imagine how many salaries that could have paid…”