ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ATTACH. #2, aseyiDounse | Attorney Theodore Philips SureaiNTeNoesT or) Chair, Board of Trustees Norwich Free Academy ATHENA NaGrL | 305 Broadway [ADMINISTRATOR Norwich, CT 06360 Joseri F. STEFON Re: Norwich Free Academy and Norwich Board of Education Gonwvevion [AND INSTRUCTION Dear Attorney Philips: MARY DONNELLY lam writing on behalf of the Norwich Board of Education (the “Board”) as a Binsctox oF STUDENT | FoHlow up to the meeting held on Wednesday June 10, 2015. In addition to you SPECIAL EDUCATION and me, Mr. Klein, Mrs. Dolliver, Mayor Hinchey and Acting City Manager Bilda were in attendance. At that time, you indicated that the only change to the contract that Norwich Free Academy (the “Academy”) is willing to make for the Board is to increase the per pupil credit for the provision of city services from $100.00 per student to $200.00 per student. While this modest increase is appreciated, in the Board’s view, this one gesture falls well short of any meaningful dialog concerning contract terms. Unfortunately, this recent meeting is a good example of the continuing lack of collaboration demonstrated by the Academy during the last two years, as the Board and the Academy attempted to resolve the differences between the two institutions with respect to a successor contract governing the enrollment of Norwich students at the Academy. The Board is gravely disappointed with the manner In which the Academy officials have approached their relationship with the Board and its officials and representatives in these negotiations. Since the Board gave notice of its intent to renegotiate its contract with the Academy, the Academy consistently rebuffed the Board’s efforts to ‘communicate regarding the negotiations for contract terms for a successor contract. Although | understand that you met with officials of other school districts that send students to the Academy, you did not meet with Board officials or respond to the concerns expressed by the Board. Notwithstanding the fact that the Board informed you in writing that officials of other districts did not represent the Board’s concerns or possess any authority to negotiate on behalf of the Board, you took the position that your discussions with these other officials somehow took the place of meaningful communications with the Board. 90 TOWN STREET, NORWICH, CO? TELEPHONE 860-823-4200 FAX 86 WWW NOBWICHPURLICSCHOOLS ORG 23-1880The Academy declined to respond to multiple written communications that set cout the Board's concerns regarding the contract being offered, and the final contract offered by the Academy did not address the most significant areas of disagreement between the parties: «Special education responsibilities and the manner in which costs for special education programs are allocated; * The manner it which enrollment figures are calculated; '* Tuition increases and the imposition of limitations on NFA’s ability to increase tuition rates in a given year; # Dispute resolution procedures; and # Term and the right to terminate. Of particular concern is the Academy’s failure to address the issues raised with respect to the educational programs for students with disabilities, as the Board was seeking to protect the interests of its most vulnerable students through the reasonable contract language offered that outlined the rights and responsibilities of the Board and the Academy with respect to the needs of disabled students. ‘The Board ultimately accepted the adhesion contract terms offered by the ‘Academy, so as to avoid the specter of having the relationship between the Board and the Academy severed, as well as to avoid placing the educational needs of high school aged Norwich residents at risk. However, the relationship between the Board and the Academy has suffered a serious blow. The ‘Academy's refusal to negotiate any terms requested by the Board communicated 3 clear message that the Academy's officials do not consider the Board to be a partner with respect to the educational needs of Norwich’s high school aged residents. It is my hope that we can use the next three years to enhance the relationship between the parties and restore the spirit of partnership that the Board and the Academy once enjoyed, notwithstanding the rancorous relationship of the last two years. ‘As you know, Superintendent Dolliver has been in communication with Connecticut’s new Commissioner of Education, Dianna Wentzell, regarding the concerns that the Board has with respect to the difficulties in negotiating a successor contract with the Academy. The Commissioner has expressed a willingness to meet directly with officials of the Board and the Academy to try to address the concerns noted. Although the Board ultimately authorized the ‘execution of the successor contract between the parties, | continue to believethat such a meeting would prove beneficial, and would demonstrate the Academy's commitment to repairing the relationship between the parties. Kindly let me know if Academy officials are willing to participate in such a meeting. Sincerely, Dr. Yvette jane Chair, Norwich Board of Education ce: Diana Wentzell, Commissioner of Education David Klein, Superintendent/Head of School, Norwich Free Academy Abby Dolliver, Superintendent of Schools, Norwich Public Schools Norwich Board of Education