New London - As the first and only all-magnet school district in the state, New London could become Connecticut's model of an integrated, high-performing school system and a pioneer of education reform.

Tasked with carrying out the grand plan that leaders have said could be the catalyst for a renaissance of this city is the Board of Education, a body that usually votes in total agreement, seems more inclined to take direction than take charge, and whose individual members rarely stake out public positions on issues.

For nearly three years, the state has had a direct role in guiding the school system out of dire financial straits and through the early stages of its metamorphosis. Along the way, the hopes for the city's revitalization have been lashed to the plan.

Now, halfway through this board's two-year term, with a new superintendent about to come aboard next month, and the state expected to cease its involvement by summer, it is left up to the Board of Education to steer the ship by itself and do something no other board in the state has ever done.

Unity through unanimity

From the first business meeting of this board on Dec. 12, 2013, through Nov. 20, 2014, members voted on 89 action items ranging from the approval of specifications for new high and middle schools to the acceptance of various grant funding.

Eighty-three of the board's 89 votes - or more than 93 percent - were unanimous, an analysis of board voting patterns by The Day found. The board rejected only one item that came before it.

The sole motion to fail was the board's own budget, which on March 27 was initially rejected amid uncertainty before it was brought back up for a second vote. Three board members who originally voted "no" switched their votes to "yes," and the budget was ultimately approved 6-1.

Excluding the vote that mistakenly rejected the education budget, only two board members have cast a "no" on any action item: Rob Funk once and Mirna Martinez four times.

"We are seven individual people, and we just happen to vote seven-zip. They're all individuals. If they want to vote no, they can and they should," said Margaret Mary Curtin, the board president. "Apparently we must agree on the subject. If you don't agree, vote no. I would."

In December 2013, a majority of the board was replaced by first-time members: Funk, Scott Garbini, Martinez and Aracelis Vazquez Haye. Three members - Curtin, Elizabeth Garcia-Gonzalez and Sylvia Potter - were re-elected.

The board is supposed to see to it that the transfiguration of New London Public Schools as laid out in its 40-page strategic operating plan is implemented by setting direction and policy for the one employee it directly controls - the superintendent - to carry out.

Since taking office a year ago, this board has had three superintendents, each one with a known expiration date. A previous board chose not to renew Nicholas A. Fischer's contract, and his tenure ended July 31. Richard Foye took over on an interim basis until Nov. 21 and Miriam Morales-Taylor is now serving until the end of this month.

Though this board's first year in office focused on finding a new superintendent, much of that work was conducted behind closed doors and outside of business at regular meetings.

When asked to point to the most significant policy achievement of the first year, neither Curtin nor Martinez - the only two board members who agreed to an interview with The Day - provided an answer. Martinez said she did not want to answer without first reviewing her notes from board meetings.

The board was stripped of its ability to institute policies when state-appointed Special Master Steven J. Adamowski abolished its policy committee, Curtin said.

Adamowski said it is common for boards of education in this state not to have dedicated policy committees, but that a board can set policy in a number of other ways.

"I think, in the broadest sense of things, everything the board does sets some type of policy for the district," he said.

Martinez, a Green Party member and the lone non-Democrat, said she thinks the board does not do enough to work through issues and improve upon the proposals set forth by the administration.

"I think it is important to have some debate, because it shows that we are a cohesive group and that we pull issues apart," she said. "In anything, I think any extreme is not good. There is something healthy about being in the middle, it can show a development of ideas."

The state's involvement

Preparing to depart after assisting the board for more than two years is former Hartford Superintendent Adamowski, the state-appointed special master who attends nearly every board meeting, steers the board through complicated issues and advocates on behalf of the school system at the state level.

Though Adamowski has recommended that the state Board of Education release New London from supervision, saying the district is "very different than (it was) two years ago," he also has imposed a series of conditions that must be met before full autonomy.

Among the issues left outstanding are ironing out a disagreement with the city over whether state magnet school transportation reimbursement funding should be included in the school board or the city budget; developing a plan to address a space crunch expected in the next few years; and installing a permanent superintendent - which will happen when Manuel Rivera takes office effective Feb. 1.

Adamowski is expected to present the state board with a more detailed account later this month, but Curtin said the end of the state's supervision cannot come soon enough.

"I think it will be like a big load off our shoulders. It's like Big Brother watching every move our employees are making," Curtin said, adding that she believes the district is ready. "I think state involvement has impeded us. I just think it will be a big load off our shoulders."

Adamowski's job, in his words, is to help the district "build capacity" and ensure that the board follows sound governance practices.

"The goals of state supervision were to attain financial stability for the district, make progress closing the achievement gap and to have a long-term solution for a school district not financially viable in independent operation," Adamowski said. "As we head toward the end of the year, given a few more things that need to be done, I look forward to all three of those goals being accomplished."

But the state's engagement, Curtin said, has not always been helpful. Under state control, she said, the board is "muted" and is left with little else to do but set the education budget.

"We really have no say. We have no say, even as far as our (meeting) agenda goes," she said. "I feel as though our hands are tied in every way I can see."

In 2007, the state began working with the school system on a District Improvement Plan and in 2011 the state board intervened by assigning former Groton Superintendent James Mitchell to monitor school board meetings, which had been marred by dysfunction, politicking and arguments over things like whether hot dogs at a school field day were served on bread or rolls.

In May 2012 a state audit deemed the Board of Education's leadership and governance "incoherent" and suggested that only "powerful, transformational and systemic interventions" could turn the school system around.

The next month, the state appointed Adamowski to serve as special master, and the city began moving full speed ahead to transform itself into an all-magnet system.

"At times, it can be frustrating because there is this other entity that has its own agenda, and we're obviously not privy to that conversation constantly," Martinez said. "But I've learned that with enough reasoning, logic and perseverance, that (state involvement) is not just a solid unmovable entity, that you can work with it."

In October, Adamowski formally recommended that the state cease its involvement in New London Public Schools by July 1, pointing to "significant progress" in implementing the strategic operating plan, continued improvement in student test scores and a stabilization of the district's finances, including the first education budget increase in five years.

Board members' role

As elected public officials, Board of Education members are expected to be the public face of the school district and a sort of "bridge of communication with community members," Martinez said.

"I think part of our role is to be kind of an ambassador or cheerleader, saying, 'Come all, come join,' but also if we just celebrate and don't talk about the realities, we can't work on developing and fixing some things," she said. "We have to be able to have some dialogue about what the concerns and issues are."

But board members are told that the board president, Curtin, is to act as the body's sole spokesperson, which Martinez said might send a confusing message.

Community frustration with the board bubbled to the surface on Dec. 15, when the board held its leadership elections and voted unanimously to re-elect Curtin as its president.

During the meeting, which was mired in confusion and parliamentary faux pas, one community member held up a sign with quotes from a Day editorial calling for Curtin to resign. Another stood up and loudly voiced his concerns with Curtin seemingly controlling the elections despite having ceded the gavel to another member.

The only leadership position that changed was that of vice president. Garcia-Gonzalez, who was not present for the elections, was replaced by Funk in that role. The next day, Garcia-Gonzalez announced she will not run for re-election to the board and addressed some of the criticism board members have faced.

"I was absent in protest of the process behind the scenes," she posted to Facebook on Dec. 16. "I will not be running next year. That's one less Democrat for those being so critical of how lousy we the Democrats have done on the BOE."

Because the city charter stipulates that all seven Board of Education members are to be elected every two years - an arrangement that city and state leaders agree needs to be changed - the possibility exists for an entirely new board to be sworn into office after the November elections. That scenario, and the effects it could have on the district as a whole, are not lost on Curtin.

"Suppose we all run next year and we all lose? You'd have a brand new board coming in. It takes a good year to get up to speed. In a critical situation with the magnets and the funding, what happens?" she asked rhetorically. "Suppose we get some people in there and they say, 'We don't really want magnets.' What happens?"

c.young@theday.com

Twitter: @ColinAYoung