Student Is Allowed to Attend Prom in Connecticut

SHELTON, Conn. (AP) — A high school headmaster here has reversed her decision to bar a senior from the prom after he broke the rules by hanging an invitation to the event at the school entrance.

The senior, James Tate, and some friends had taped cardboard letters on the wall that read, “Sonali Rodrigues will you go to prom with me? HMU — Tate.” (HMU means hit me up, or contact me.)

Ms. Rodrigues said yes, but officials at Shelton High School suspended Mr. Tate for posting the invitation, saying it was a safety risk.

The suspension lasted one day, but, according to school rules, he could not attend the prom, scheduled for June 4, because the punishment occurred after April 1.

On Saturday, however, the headmaster, Beth A. Smith, announced a shift in policy. Now, she said, the school would decide whether suspended students could go to the prom on a case-by-case basis. In Mr. Tate’s case, he will be allowed to attend.

Dr. Smith acknowledged the “international notoriety” the case had received on social networks and in the news media. Mr. Tate, who plans to attend Syracuse University, appeared on the “Today” show and “Jimmy Kimmel Live” after his suspension.

Students also staged a sit-in to protest the decision.

Connecticut Unions Agree to $1.6 Billion in Givebacks

 

Mr. Malloy announced the deal after two months of negotiations and the passage of a budget last week that assumed concessions before they were accepted by the unions. He said the deal, which is still subject to ratification by workers, would save Connecticut taxpayers $21.5 billion over 20 years through structural changes in employee compensation.

The governor, a Democrat who won election in November with strong union support, has carved out a national niche as a politician seeking an approach to state governance different from the confrontational stances taken by Republican counterparts like Chris Christie in New Jersey and Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Despite layoff notices that started going out this week, Mr. Malloy and labor leaders maintained a cordial public tone throughout the bargaining.

Mr. Malloy hailed the deal as “historic because of the way we achieved it — we respected the collective-bargaining process and we respected each other, negotiating in good faith, without fireworks and without anger.” He also called the deal “the most significant agreement with state employees in Connecticut history” for its long-term approach.

Republicans were far less impressed; the party’s chairman, Chris Healy, called the agreement a “budget charade,” with insufficient work force cuts because of Mr. Malloy’s close ties to employee unions.

The agreement includes a provision that no unionized employees will be laid off for four years and a two-year freeze on wages for all employees. Mr. Malloy said he nevertheless planned to reduce the size of the government through attrition and the elimination of managerial positions.

The concessions fall $400 million short of the $2 billion Mr. Malloy sought, a difference that will be made up with more spending cuts and revenues that are higher than had been anticipated.

But no further details are being released as negotiators take the agreement to 34 bargaining units at 15 unions; it needs 14 of those unions and 80 percent of the voting members to approve it. Union officials said they would send details to members immediately, and planned to make them public at the beginning of next week.

Larry Dorman, a spokesman for the unions, said it was hard to predict how members would react, but the deal should be evaluated in terms of contentious anti-union sentiments and turmoil in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere. “I hate to say if it’s good or bad,” he said, “but we stand behind it and think it’s the right thing to do in these difficult times.”

Republicans said it was impossible to assess the package fully without more specifics, but said the amicable dealings between Mr. Malloy and union leaders were not necessarily a good sign.

“A lot of people have asked where’s the outrage, the kind of outrage you saw in Wisconsin and around the country where various governors, especially Republican governors, have wanted to make changes,” the House Republican leader, Larry Cafero, said.

Mr. Cafero said the $40.1 billion, two-year budget approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature relied too much on tax increases and not enough on reducing the size of government. The promise of no layoffs, he said, would leave the state in a precarious position if the economy again plummeted.

State officials said the agreement did not contain any furlough days or reductions in hours for permanent employees. Other details were scarce, but The Hartford Courant reported that provisions include wage increases of 3 percent for each of three years after the two-year freeze, and a rise in the retirement age by three years for state employees who retire after 2017.

Mr. Malloy said, “This is the definition of structural savings: these savings are real, and they provide relief to Connecticut taxpayers now and into the future for years to come.”

In an antitax era, the new budget depends in large part on almost $1.5 billion in increased taxes on personal income, corporations and an array of purchases and services, from yachts to inexpensive clothing, to plug a deficit once estimated between $3.2 billion and $3.5 billion.

And while the confrontational approach has made Governor Christie of New Jersey a hot property, there is no early indication that what Mr. Malloy calls “shared sacrifice” is working as well for him. A Quinnipiac University poll in March put his approval rating at 35 percent.

The Republican Senate leader, John McKinney, said that in addition to the no-layoff provision, he was concerned with how long the clauses on pensions and health benefits would last: through 2022. He said that committed future legislators to a deal that might no longer make sense.

And Mr. Cafero said the shared sacrifice was mostly borne by taxpayers. “We’re not spending less on government next year, and we’ve foisted on the public the largest tax increase in the history of the state,” he said. “I don’t call that balanced. He’s defined sacrifice within the four corners of the budget and is saying everyone has to say ouch a little bit. Well, the taxpayers are saying ouch a lot.”

Roy Occhiogrosso, a Malloy spokesman, disputed Republican claims and defended the agreement. “Taxpayers are saving $1.6 billion over the next two years, and there will be no layoffs,” he said. “This is the most fiscally responsible budget in the country.”

 

Without Concessions, Connecticut Starts Layoff Process

 

Both sides said talks would continue and expressed hope for a breakthrough, but the notices marked an impasse that might have seemed unlikely when Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, was elected in November with heavy union support. The governor has warned of layoffs and wrenching program cuts since he announced his proposed spending plan on Feb. 16, saying that significant concessions from state workers and substantial program cuts were needed to produce a balanced budget.

Last week, the legislature passed a two-year, $40.1 billion budget that assumed $1 billion each year in concessions. The notices sent on Tuesday were a reminder that those savings are still assumed rather than real, and that the alternative is thousands of layoffs, which the governor said would save the state about $455 million, as well as $545 million in additional spending cuts across state government.

“I want to be clear that this is not the road I wanted to go down,” Mr. Malloy said in a statement. “I didn’t want to lay people off, and I didn’t want to make additional spending cuts beyond the $780 million in spending we’ve already cut. But I have no choice.”

“I promised to deliver a budget that is balanced with no gimmicks,” he added, “and I will.”

The notices went to the first of 4,742 employees singled out for layoffs, which would be effective in the new fiscal year, beginning July 1. Program cuts are likely to push the number to more than 5,000 out of a full-time work force of more than 46,000.

But rather than a decisive line in the sand, the layoff notices were described by both sides as part of a process that seems to be unfolding in the traditional, protracted rhythms of labor negotiations. Neither side seemed inclined to set rigid deadlines.

“We’re going to keep talking until we reach a mutual agreement,” said Matt O’Connor, a spokesman for the consortium of unions negotiating with the state. “The hope,” he added, “is we reach a mutual agreement sooner rather than later, but that’s been the hope all along.”

Roy Occhiogrosso, a Malloy spokesman, said the governor sent out the notices reluctantly. “I think he has the sense that not enough progress has been made to warrant delaying another day or two, and he felt it was important to begin this process in an orderly fashion in case no deal is reached,” Mr. Occhiogrosso said. “You can’t wait until the very end of the process and then do all the catching up.”

The layoffs vary across departments and agencies. The most would come at the Education Department, which would lose 1,413 of its 1,706 employees, including large numbers of teachers at vocational-technical schools. Also included in the cuts are 471 jobs in higher education, including the Connecticut state university system, and an additional 285 jobs at the University of Connecticut. With the state trying to maximize tax collections, largely spared is the Department of Revenue Services, where only 1.6 percent of the work force would be laid off.

Union officials said the layoffs would be disastrous at a time of widespread unemployment.

“Layoffs aren’t good for the economy; whether they’re private sector or public sector, it doesn’t make a difference,” Mr. O’Connor said. “The last thing Connecticut needs is more job cuts.”

Mr. Malloy said the concessions he sought in wages, health care and pension benefits were aimed at both the short-term savings necessary to balance this budget and the long-term structural savings needed to make state government sustainable.

“The state employee representatives have thus far not offered enough,” he said.