New Haven, Conn. – A grievance filed by the School Administrators Association (SAA) is bringing to light a dispute over the district’s practice of releasing teachers‑union officers from classroom duties while administrators receive no comparable relief. The grievance, filed in October 2025 and presented as an exhibit at Thursday’s anti‑retaliation hearing, underscores the administrators’ call for fairness and public accountability.

Background of the dispute

The New Haven Federation of Teachers (NHFT) has sued New Haven Public Schools (NHPS) in an anti‑retaliation case after the district required vice president Jenny Graves to return to full‑time teaching and moved president Leslie Blatteau to a part‑time classroom role. The teachers’ union claims these actions are retaliation for their outspoken advocacy during contract negotiations.

While the teachers’ union focuses on alleged retaliation, the SAA argues the core issue is an inequitable release‑officer arrangement. Tara Cass, president of SAA Local 18, told the Independent that the grievance was filed “over a basic question of fairness and public accountability,” not as a disagreement with teachers’ right to strong representation.

What the administrators are asking for

The SAA represents roughly 114 principals, assistant principals and other NHPS managers, whereas the NHFT represents about 1,800 city teachers. Cass explained that the teachers’ contract permits one union officer a reduced teaching load of up to ten periods per week and allows up to two officers to take a full‑time, unpaid Federation Leave if they apply before July 1. In August 2023 the superintendent signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that extended this release to two officers for the 2023‑2024 school year, with extensions left to the superintendent’s discretion.

According to Cass, the administrators never saw the MOU until October 23, 2025, more than two years after it was signed, and only learned of it by filing a grievance. The SAA contends that continuing a side agreement year after year, without the proper contract‑based leave process, creates a structural advantage for the teachers’ union and is an unfair labor practice.

Remedies sought

The grievance requests three specific actions from the district:

• Stop enforcing or renewing the August 24, 2023 NHFT MOU that grants district‑paid release time to union officers.
• Disclose all records showing board authorization and fiscal approvals for the MOU and any extensions.
• Negotiate comparable release‑time provisions or stipends for SAA officers, ensuring that administrators who perform union‑related duties are fairly compensated.

Cass emphasized that public dollars and staff positions belong to the public and should be allocated transparently, especially in a year when the district opened school with 156 unfilled teaching positions.

Union perspectives and hearing testimony

During the hearing, NHFT attorney Eric Chester called several witnesses, including Blatteau and veteran music educators Gillian Lynch and Marissa Iezzi. Blatteau’s testimony highlighted the grievance as an exhibit and recounted a March 2026 meeting with Superintendent Madeline Negrón, during which she asked why the administrators were filing a grievance on the teachers’ release agreement.

Blatteau recalled the superintendent indicating the grievance was likely to be rejected and noting the school board’s desire to maintain “only one released officer.” She also referenced a conversation with Board of Education President OrLando Yarborough, who reportedly said morale was low among board members during contract negotiations.

Why the administrators’ stance matters

The SAA’s position aligns with principles of fairness, fiscal responsibility and parental‑rights advocacy. By seeking comparable release‑time provisions, the administrators aim to ensure that principals and managers who take on union‑related responsibilities are not left to shoulder extra workload without compensation. This approach protects the quality of education for students and upholds the integrity of public‑funded school operations.

As the anti‑retaliation case proceeds, the district will need to address the administrators’ concerns about transparency, equitable treatment and proper use of public resources. The outcome could set an important precedent for how school districts balance union representation with the operational needs of school leaders.

Original reporting: New Haven Independent — read the source article.