Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

H . I M-Document 58-3 Filed 08/t_2_/20042 Page- 1--oid Illn in
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - ~ ‘ * I I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT .
1 DOCKET NO. _ ‘ g
. ctw or nnnrroap, et at [ il 3 ii} *§§’tqf?f
2 February 3 , 2003
AFFIDAVIT OF NUKILWA TAQUILAYA
THE UNDERSIGNED, being duly sworn. makes oath and says as follows:
1. I am over the age of eighteen years and I understand and respect the obligation of an
oath.
2. I make this oath on the basis of my personal knowledge. if anything in here is based
on information and beliei it will be so stated and the basis therefor given.
3. I am employed at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut as Coordinator ofthe
Trinity Connecticut Campus Compact Program. Prior to my involvement as a pane} member in “‘The
Matter of Superintendent of Hartford Public Schools and Tenured Teacher Beverly Myers" (the “t 0~
if! 15 E b Proceeding") I had been involved in the arbitration or mediation of other labor issues.
4. Early in the year 2002, I was appointed as an impartial panet member in the l0—t5lb
Proceeding by Beverly Myers. Appointed by the Superintendent of Schoois was John W. Rornanow.
The neutraily appointed panel member was Mark L. Irvings, who was Chair ofthe panel.
5. The hearing commenced on May 13, 2002 and continued on May 14, 2002, June l0,
24 and 16*, and July 15, 2002. A hearing was scheduled for September 13, 2002.
Z.-? I

H I H I H Case 3:O3-cv-OO652;_PCD- Document 58-3 Filed 08/lg/2004 Page 2 of 4 I an
6. During the course of testimony through July 15, 2002, the Superintendent was
required by a unanimous panel to withdraw its main charge against Beverly Myers, namely that she
should be dismissed on the basis of a negative evaluation given her in May 200i. Furthermore,
despite the presentation of numerous witnesses by the Superintendent, no conduct warranting
dismissal had been testified to by any witness.
7. On the morning of September i3, 2002, before the hearing was scheduled to
commence and atter all parties and panel members has arrived, Mr. lrvings made an issue of payment
ot` future fees to him.
8. Prior to that time, I had not been privy to his agreements with the parties. From the
discussion, which took place in the hallway outside the hearing room and in my presence, I iearned
hom hirn that Ms. Myers had made installment payments upto an amount specified by him and had,
in Mr. lrvings own words, “religiously" made all the payments and was fully paid to that time. Mr.
Irvings, despite this, expressed his unwillingness to proceed unless his payment in Full for all future
hearings were paid for at that time, based on the maximum number of hearing days he estimated.
9. Counsel for Ms. Myers indicated that she was agreeable to continuing that instailment
_-.: payment plan, to which Mr. lrvings had already agreed and that his demand was prejudicial to her.
Mr. lrvings rejected this proposal to continue the existing agreement.
10. i was shocked and surprised by Mr. lrvings’ demands and embarrassed that he made
them in front of the other panel members and especially embarrassed that he made them in front of
Attorney Ann Bird, counsel to the Superintendent, and in the presence of Robert Stacey, the
Snperintendenfs representative at the hearings. I was also concerned that he was demanding
payment in fuli for hearings that had not yet occurred and which might never occur.
if 2

N an an -N--Clase 3:03-cv—OO652;_PCD Document 58-3 Filed 08/12/2004 Page 3 of 4 I I
ll. Attorney Ann Bird intervened in the proceeding to disclose to Mr. lrvings salary
payment information regarding Beverly Myers, including amounts and dates on which she received
and would receive salary payments. `
12. Counsel for Beverly Myers objected that Mr. Irvings’ demands constituted a change
of terms and that the public nature of the discussion in which he put this demand was prejudicial to
his client.
13. In view of this dispute, the three panel members met privately and determined that they
could no longer serve as an unbiased hearing panel. ln my own view, Mr. lrvings had acted
unethically and in breach of what he said the existing payment agreement was and that the info rmation
discussed should never had been made known to the other panel members. As a result ofthe private
discussion, the panel convened the hearing that day for the sole purpose of resigning. A copy ofthe
transcript of that hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
14. l was further shocked when I later learned that the Superintendent was taking the
Eil position that Beverly Myers had waived her right to a hearing and that he was placing a motion before
the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools to terminate her on the basis of such
alleged waiver.
I5. Ms. Myers never waived any rights in the hearing. She and her counsel vigorously
contested the allegations ofthe Superintendent and at the time that the panel resigned, had the better
case.
l6. ln view of what l saw as a distortion ofthe facts, l attended the Public Hearing ofthe
State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools on November 6, 2002 at the Hooker
Elementary School, at 5:30 pm. I arrived early.

,_ Case 3:03-cv-0O65%_lf’CD Document 58-3 Filed 08/jig/2004 Page 4 of 4
I"?. On information and beiiei the motion to terminate Beverly Myers was put before the
Board by Superintendent Amato. Prior to the hearing, however, Superintendent Amato resigned and
F Robert Henry was appointed as Superintendent. Mr. Henry was present for the meeting ofthe Board.
‘-_- Qi. I8. Mr. Francis Miriiter, Counsei to Bevery Myers, and} both spoke to inform the Board
and Ms. Myers had never waived any rights. i told them exactly how the Panel came to resign and
that it did not involve any waiver of rights by Ms. Myers.
t9. I attended through to the very end ofthe meeting and its adjournment. When the item
regarding the termination of Ms. Myers, Mr. Torn Ritter, the Chairperson ofthe meeting, reeused
himself Marilda Gandara was not present.
20. There was no discussion ofthe motion, and a Board member moved to pass over the
item. The vote carried. At no time during the hearing was there a discussion or vote on the Motion
itseif
an
I ’wir'*•r="€ AQUILAYA
y ,...r.g r" \
‘ Subscribed and Swomgo
;i`= before me on this;-Ez.
day of February, 2003
,·` J..»&·!—4!
. . ts ·/¢4»~.»¤" ·-.- __ · Notary Public
4