Swamped by my day job this week, so just a brief update on tonight's Portsmouth Town Council/School Committee meeting: No decision on any Caruolo compromise as of the time they went into executive session about 9:30.

The Council spent a good amount of time exploring the issues, getting legal input both from Town Solicitor Kevin Gavin, and also School Committee attorney Stephen Robinson, who was on hand. There were questions about the "Basic Educational Program," or BEP, and whether the town could cut things above that. (While technically possible, not if it violated existing contracts.)

Dr. Lusi had some updated numbers from December, which, with added Medicaid revenue on the plus and higher SPED costs on the minus, might have changed the bottom line number by what sounded like 90K, before adding in the costs of the program audit. So there was no real wiggle room, which frustrated some on the council.

"Can there be a number between 770 and zero that the school committee could live with?" Asked Council President Canario. "We wanted to do this in an open workshop. We were hoping the school committee would come up with a number." Dr. Lusi replied that the school committee had already made two rounds of cuts -- the first cuts by the council in June, of 1m, and then the Tent Meeting cuts of 1.1 of which, she pointed out, B&E had determined that only about 300K could be made without violating law, regulation, and contract, so that's where the number came from.

It sounded like there were at least three votes for a middle path. James Seveney tried to be reasonable: "Let's not scare people. This is going to happen. There's going to be a supplemental tax bill. We're unbalanced right now and we need to make it right for this year. The schools need the money -- I don't want to give a dime of it to anybody else."

Len Katzman took a similar tack: "I'm not a financial expert. Say it's 770, or whatever, if B&E isn't lying, it's not zero. To save 200k [the estimated legal fees for a full Caruolo action] we can accept the 770 number, because that's where we may end up."

And William West added a note of caution. "If we go to litigation, and the judge rules for the school, the money's gone. That's it. I don't think we're being less prudent by saying we need a stipulated agreement."

If anything comes out of open session, we we won't hear about it tomorrow anyway -- the reporters from both the Sakonnet Times and Newport Daily News left before I did. (I stuck around to hear Karen Gleason poke interminably at the language of the RFP for the Performance audit of the School Department. "If I'm getting too picky, let me know." Dave Faucher, the Finance Director, raised his hand...

ADDENDUM: I sent this to the Town Council via email earlier today.

Mr. President and members of the Town Council:
I heard last night that public comment will not be allowed in tonight's discussion of the Caruolo action, and wanted to take an opportunity to share some thoughts. My apologies to Ms. Gleason and Mr. Little, who do not have e-mail addresses listed.

It is said that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. I urge the council not to dig our town in deeper and negotiate a stipulated agreement.

We are indeed in a hole. The school year is half over, and instead of being able to focus on the economic realities facing the Town under the tax caps next year, we are bogged down in rehashing last year's budget. Personally, I live in Island Park, and would like to see the Council's time freed to focus on wastewater and sewerage questions.

You have an opportunity to stop the digging now. While I'm not a lawyer, my personal experience with legal proceedings leads me to believe that to contest the School Department's claim effectively, you are going to need to dispute the facts presented in their complaint, chief of which, one would assume, is the budget deficit determined by B&E.

To convince the judge their number is wrong, you would need evidence, such as another audit, at a cost of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars. In addition, if you choose to proceed in an adversarial fashion, you would, perversely, pay the costs of litigation on both sides, which ultimately comes out of taxpayers's pockets.

I respectfully suggest that the Council consider carefully the wisdom of this course of action, and I urge the council not to dig our town in deeper.

And, lest there be concern about the necessity of such an agreement, let me point out that even the PCC admits that there is a significant deficit.

At the November 28 School Committee meeting, immediately before the vote by the committee to pursue a Caruolo Action, PCC president Larry Fitzmorris addressed the committee, arguing that such an action would be an attempt to subvert the decision of the people at the Town Meeting.

I call attention to another thing he said in that public statement. In talking about the size of the current deficit, he said it was, quote, "770 thousand -- which I think is more like half a million." [I was at the meeting, have watched it twice on Cox, and this is as good a transcription as I can make, but it may not be completely accurate]

But note that he did not say, "770 thousand -- which I think is more like zero." Mr. Fitzmorris and the PCC are therefore on the record as accepting that there exists a deficit on the order of half a million dollars.

I think the Town Council can do no less. If even the PCC believes that there is a deficit of this magnitude, then it seems that the Town Council should feel free to enter into a stipulated agreement.

I know these are difficult times and difficult decisions, and I thank you for your consideration, and for all the work you've been doing.

Kind Regards.