Save Our Schools urges action at Wednesday Council meeting

The Save Our Schools (SOS) folks sent out an e-mail this morning urging everyone who cares about appropriate funding for education to show up at the Town Council budget hearing Wednesday night. If you've been following the news, you saw that the General Assembly likely has the votes to level-fund education in the next budget, a cut of 3% from what Governor Carcieri proposed. Making sure our schools have the funds at the local level is absolutely critical. Here's the note from SOS:

Please Forward This E-mail To All School Supporters

If you receive this e-mail from someone other than info@sosportsmouth.org and you would like to receive future updates, please send mail to that address with the word "subscribe" in the subject line.

Town Budget Meeting

This Wednesday, June 20, at 7:00 in the Portsmouth Middle School Auditorium, the Town Council and School Committee will hold the public forum on the proposed 2007-2008 town budget. It is very important that school supporters be present, as the anti-school faction within the town has been hard at work behind the scenes again this year. Be prepared to speak in support of the school budget and to advocate that the school warrants be restored to the town budget. We can expect that voices supporting further cuts will be organized and present. Don't let them be the only voices heard by the council.

Please pass this message on to every Portsmouth resident you know who supports the schools and let's try to have as many school supporters come to the budget hearing as possible.

The State Of the Budget

The school committee presented to the Town Council a budget that stayed within the tax cap. This was accomplished in large part by closing the Prudence Island School, moving the fifth grade to the elementary schools, and moving the school administration into the middle school. In addition, the school committee made it clear that this budget relied heavily upon the $700,000 in warrant items that have been available as part of the school revenues for many years, and that denial of these funds would break the budget. These funds cost the town only $80,000 in next years budget.

However, the town council, led by Dennis Canario, Karen Gleason, Peter McIntyre, and Huck Little voted to reduce the budget of the schools beyond the reductions at the tent meeting and the Caruolo action by denying these vital funds. This reduction in funds could very well force the School Committee into another Caruolo action.

Comments

I agree with, President Dennis Canario, Karen Gleason, Peter McIntyre, and Huck Little. Lusi already went to court and had her say, the judge has spoken.(what happened to that big YAY!Victory?), Notice how long that lasted?
They should be able to live within what they got(and be grateful for it by the way),and what they have, and what they have cut, People are angry about the PI little school being closed! Why should they get more money now? I thought these cuts, was the whole idea?
Force another Caruolo act? I seriously doubt that, this is just Lusi's attempt at intimadation,and an empty threat , to see how much more she can get out of it...It will never fly! People recognize GREED when they see it.

Hi, Delilah...
What the schools are asking for in FY08 represents only a 3.96% increase over the final court-mandated budget from last year; I invite you to look at the numbers. The School Committee approved the budget, and it is within the Paiva-Weed cap.

What was NOT anticipated was the decision by the Town to cut the warrant items. That is $700,000 in spending, and given the tightness of the budget, such a cut is not sustainable. That is not greed. Go look at the numbers before you make wild accusations.

For the record -- I do not recall ever hearing Dr. Lusi or any members of the School Committee use the word "Caruolo" about this situation. Nor do I think this is particularly helpful, because it just amps up the rhetoric. Using this language is not a choice I would have made; I was just passing along the note from SOS.

Cheers.
-j

In other words as long as I agree with everything you say,believe,and write, then everything with be just fine, and when I disagree on an issue, we are no longer on good terms. As I suspected you are not in this for debate, or to even listen to anothers opinions,and beliefs. This is obviously ALL one sided, YOUR way, or NO way at all.
I guess you are hoping that 3 members of the councel will run the whole show...Seveney,Katzman, and West...Sorry but 7 members were voted in by the people, and the majority vote rules. I guess this means that the 4 you have mentioned are just, ignorant,mis-informed,uneducated,people,and all 4 don't have a clue as to what they are talking about? Is this what you expect me to believe?As I have said before...you are always going to agree with the other 3 mentioned...because of ,and based solely on, the school issues(alone), regardless of anything else!
Since I do not believe this to be rational thinking, I have decided to create my own blog, where I will always keep an open mind, listen to everyones opinions, and beliefs, and respect them no matter if they agree with my own, or not. I mean ...how do you debate with anyone who is a Legend in his own mind?
My suggestion to you is to change your blog to...SOS concerns ONLY...that is obviously your major motive to your whole being!
I will not be reading your blog anymore, after your reply to this today. I will be busy creating my own,and welcoming EVERYONE, for good ole simple debate,without bias, or motive.

Hi, Delilah...
My apologies for a poor choice of words. "Rapprochement" would have been better. Or "finding common ground." I am sorry for the implicit conflict metaphor that "truce" has, and if I could take the word back, I would.

I assure you, I am in this for the debate. I happily listen to others opinions and beliefs, but I base my judgement on facts. The facts here are plain: the School Committee voted, in a bipartisan vote, to approve a budget for the 2008 school year. A budget that comes in under the Paiva-Weed cap. That budget was based on the same assumptions as the post-Caruolo budget for last year, which included warrant items historically paid for by the Town. The move by the Council to discontinue these items represents a significant shift in policy, and one which was only announced to the School Committee on the day they finalized their budget. They did not have the opportunity to even attempt to factor in these costs. That is not rhetoric, or opinion, or belief. Those are verifiable facts.

Given those facts, it is my opinion that the Town Council should, at the very least, continue to fund at least the technology warrant for this year. In this, my suspicion is that I would probably be disagreeing with the 3 Councilors you identify. Personally, and this is my opinion, I believe that there is enough residual money in the building warrants to scrape by for a year, barring some unforseen infrastructure problem like a failed boiler. But I have been following the numbers pretty closely, and I believe that there is no way the school can come up with the over $100K for software licenses or the $200K for new math textbooks. That means that the technology warrants are critical for maintaining functioning computers in our schools and implementing the Math curriculum.

Is support of the schools one of my main motivations? Clearly. I will say in my defense: the folks who advocate the opposing viewpoint do not feel obligated, in their newsletter, to represent alternative points of view, nor do they, to my knowledge, even allow letters to the editor. I freely allow those here, in fact, I welcome them. You are always welcome here, and please do send me a link to your blog.

Best regards.
-john

Unlike the PCC...I would allow you into my blog(as you have been kind enough to allow me), I would welcome the debate,and also the people's response to your whinning over the pooor school budget...Call 1-800-WAAWAAA.
I don't know how much credit I can put into the words,and writings,coming from a man who claims to be so well informed,but lives in Island Park, yet hasn't a clue as to what is happening in the Point area! Perhaps you are too busy,and putting TOO MUCH time ,and energy, into the school department issues. Spread it around John.

Hi, Delilah...
I believe you are misremembering other threads; I said that I was quite aware of the valuation questions on Anthony Road. Other folks who were commenting here may have disagreed with me, but I am certainly aware of that. Unless you're talking about something else, in which case I do plead ignorance.

Unless you have only been reading a subset of my posts, I don't see how you can believe I only care about the schools. My record of coverage and discussion of wastewater, Target, the Town Budget, the "vote in a booth" referendum, alternative energy, and other town boards and committees speaks for itself.

Do I have a limited amount of time? Yes. I have a very demanding day job. If that means I have to prioritize, then I'll cop to that. But your characterization of my blog as being only about school issues is not supported by even a cursory reading.

If school issues seem to occupy more column inches, that's only because they have occupied more of the Town Council's time over the past year. I'm reporting what's happening.

Cheers.
-j

Delilah - It sounds like you're hyperventilating. Note clearly "In addition, the school committee made it clear that this budget relied heavily upon the $700,000 in warrant items that have been available as part of the school revenues for many years, and that denial of these funds would break the budget." This is a $700,000 cut any way you look at it. The issue isn't greed - it is getting the funds required to fullfill legal mandates. Remember, it isn't the SOS or John McDaid that decided that the PCC/Tent meeting budget was legally insufficient - it was a Judge in a court of law. And please don't tell me (as I have heard the PCC spout) that the Judge is "in on the conspiracy" because any argument along those lines is irresponsible and a waste of time. Sincerely, Viking.

I would never suggest that for a minute. Now let me ask you the same question I asked John...Are you saying that 4 of the elected council are all wrong in their way of thinking? They haven't a clue?
Do you expect me to believe that? The schools have needed text books for YEARS(FACT)...way before any tent meeting, budget crisis...etc..that is a known FACT, based on the REALITY of the situation. Instead they have chosen through out the years to put money(s) else-where, like say...sports,and extra activities,and luxury items, above the VERY important text books.And they would rather have a new state of the art, (first) this, then that, than to keep the PI school open(for 75k). You tell me where the priorities are?
I didn't here anyone mention Mr. Carpender standing up shortly after the close of the school issue(still a very raw,open wound), asking the council for more money for these schools, and how upset President Canario was with him about it. With perfect reasoning,and logic, behind his anger.
YOU remember that it was a judge in a court of law who decided how much they should get,and how much they should stay within',and live with, as well! I know exactly what the judge said, I'm informed.

I'm not hyperventilating, I'm breathing very well...and a sigh of relief, in knowing that we have at least 4 people on the town council that will be getting my vote for as long as they are still running! We (i can speak for myself,as well as many people I have spoken with) Do NOT want lawyers running our town,or anyone with a vested interest to better only one segment, and I think you and john both know who I'm refering to. Also... Didn't hear anything from john about Katzmans attempt at a little humor(very little), when he made mention to a possible"smaller building" for the LNG, being out of the question?(in referrance to the Target store,"big box")Then raised his hands with a grin from ear to ear, ...(Hey John, No video of that one?) Well...thats ok, everyone knows where Katzman stands on that,and why. But that doesn't mean anything to john does it...as long as he (Katzman) is for more,and more,money for the schools, He will have his votes. It is very clear to me,and very sad.

Sincerely, Delilah

Hi, Delilah...
I need to state for the record: Carpender was not asking for more money He was asking for the Council to fund the warrant items which were previously part of the budget.

I will state again for the record: technology is not a luxury. A TV studio is not a luxury (and it was paid for with grant money.) And budgeting for sports on the assumption that you have warrant items to pay for books is not irresponsible; it was done on the advice of auditors.

I can disagree with members of the Town Council without thinking that "they haven't a clue." I think Council President Dennis Canario is both clueful and wise, and I am on the record as acknowledging that even at the point I most disagreed with him, when he voted not to pursue a stipulated agreement. So I reject your totalizing rhetoric that says any disagreement with Council members is an assertion that they are clueless.

Why no video of Len Katzman's off-hand LNG joke? It was not germane to the discussion. When I use video, and I do so sparingly, I use it as an illustration of a significant moment best seen in raw form, something I don't want people to take my admittedly biased word on. When Karen Gleason proposes cutting $200K and then says to me that she did not mean what she clearly knew she meant, I want people to see that. I'm not going to waste my readers' time with a video clip of an extraneous joke.

Cheers.
-j

thats why I was only being funny when I said it(video clip). You can be so cute when your taken in. LOL...but maybe I just wanted your readers to read...what they might have missed at the meeting..."extraneous" as it may be to YOU. It just may be an interesting tid-bit to others, did you ever think of that?

Ok...So...these things were all payed for with"grant money"...Then why after so many years do we still need the text books???Your answers are brilliant(always correct,and accurate,of course!),But seem to be very selective.

Hi, Delilah...
I usually write these things up right after it happens, so I may not get this quite right. Bill Clarke was raising the question, relative to the big-box moratorium, of whether the concern would still be there if Target were talking about four 38K square foot buildings. Dennis Canario said that maybe we should focus more on the use. Then Katzman said, "So a very small LNG facility would be okay?" The point he seemed to be making, and I believe it was directed more at Clarke than Canario, was that both size and use need to be considered. Since this was implicit in the motion that the Council approved, I do not see how this "tid-bit" adds a lot of value. Honestly, if you can tell me what you think this illuminates, I'm all ears.

I did not say that "all" technology was paid for by grant money. Some of it was, and is. Some of it, yes, has been paid for from the tech warrants, as are the textbooks, which we need to refresh when the curriculum, or the substance of the texts themselves changes.

Cheers.
-j

that you really haven't a clue as to where I'm going with the connection between Katzman,and LNG??? Before you ask me for the facts...and IF you really don't know them (regarding this matter)...then I suggest you do more homework.

Have a nice day.

Delilah

Hello, Delilah. I would have replied sooner to your post, but it took me some time to get a user login here. I know you said you were leaving this blog, but I really hope you are still reading it so you can see my response to your comment. I am a reader of the blog, but I don't post to it. In this case, however, you mentioned me by name and said some things that are not right, so here I am commeting.

Anyway... You seem to be implying some ulterior motive connection between me and LNG. Also, you wrote in another entry above that, "everyone knows where Katzman stands on that [meaning LNG], and why."

Well, Delilah, I can tell you point blank where I stand on LNG and why.

FOR THE RECORD: I am opposed to the Weaver's Cove LNG proposal. Period! I think having those giant LNG tankers going through the bay would be horrible for a host of reasons, including safety and the negative impact on the local economy. This kind of thing belongs offshore and not near our densly populated areas.

There. Clear enough?

Perhaps you have been confused about my position because I have recused myself from town council deliberations on LNG matters in conformance with the state's ethics laws. My employer, the law firm that I work for, represents Weaver's Cove Energy in some regulatory matters. I personally have nothing to do with that representation and in fact I don't practice in regulatory law at all. But the ethics laws are designed to eliminate even the "appearance of impropriety". So, any council member who works for an employer that might be impacted, positively or negatively, by the actions of the town council has a legal obligation to recuse themselves from the deliberations.

Of course, the ethics laws don't govern what I can say outside the context of a council meeting, such as here in this blog. The constitution's first amendment free speech rights govern that.

So, let me say it again, clearly, I'm against ANY of the LNG plans that have been proposed including the Weaver's Cove plan and the Keyspan plan. Thank goodness the Keyspan plan seems to be finally dead, and it looks optimistic that Weaver's Cove may get squashed too.

I hope I've made myself clear. I'm against the LNG proposal. But, I also have to comply with the ethics laws and recuse myself from council actions that are directed to it. Frankly, it kills me that I can't be up on the platform voting in unison with my fellow council members. We're all against it. I just can't deliberate it or vote. That's the law.

I am saddened that folks may jump to erroneous conclusions about my position because of my recusal. There's really nothing I can do about that. I guess some folks are just going to assume the worst.

Delilah, I gather from many of your other posts that you don't like me, you don't support the positions I stand for, you think I'm a son of a ______ and you'll never vote for me. That's fine. You and I can certainly agree to disagree. But please don't assume ulterior motives that I don't have. I'm sure we can have plenty of things to disagree about without interjecting erroneous assumptions.

If you want to talk about my position on LNG further, feel free to do so in this blog and I'll try to repy in a timely fashion. If you'd rather do so offline, you can reach me by email at len.katzman.portsmouth@gmail.com and you should feel free to use an anonymous email address if you like. You can set up an account at gmail.com pretty easily. Of course, as a Portsmouth Citizen you should feel free to call me directly any time. I'm in the phone book.

Very truly yours,
Len Katzman

I never said I didn't like you, In fact...I voted for you! and there are some issues that I totally agree with you on. One/latest example:I liked, and agreed with your proposal, over Ms. Gleasons, on the whole big box issue. However...that is more than I can say for someone who only agrees with EVERYTHING a person says , simply because they are a Democrat, or simply because they are for more money into the school department.
What I have read ,and heard from other portsmouth citizens was that you were for LNG, I suppose it was the affiliation of the firm you work for,and other things you mentioned above that confused them,and I. I hope that you will except my apology for any mis-informed information that I have recieved,and added to this blog...Politics are dirty pool,more often than not, unfortunately.
I thank you for setting me straight on this matter.
I will admit that I would like to see Mr. Seveney,and Mr. West gone from the council, if they run...But I have no problem with seeing you back again. Sorry about the mixed messages. At least YOU are willing to listen, and consider new idea's, that is refreshing.
Oh...and hopefully this is really Mr. Katzman that I'am writing to.

Thank you for your reply.
Sincerely,
Delilah

"I can disagree with members of the Town Council without thinking that "they haven't a clue."
even amusing to me, how you can consistently disagree with the same 4 council members,yet always agree with the same 3 others.
Just an observation.

Hi, Delilah...
I have quite often agreed with Council President Dennis Canario. You can go back and look.

I will admit that I rarely agree with the other three -- although on the recent development moratorium, you'll find that I agreed with almost everyone, Ms. Gleason excepted.

There is a simple reason for the "consistency," you cite, and the root cause is not the schools. Huck Little and Peter McIntyre are Republicans, and their ideology is fundamentally different from mine. I make no secret of the fact that I'm a Democrat, and a progressive one at that. WYSIWYG.

Karen Gleason, while nominally an Independent, has generally voted with McIntyre and Little, and thus you will find me disagreeing with her positions, whether the matter at hand is the schools or not.

Cheers.
-j

"There is a simple reason for the "consistency," you cite, and the root cause is not the schools."

I do not buy this for a minute, Sorry.
Your blog PAGE has many interesting things to read...Thinking I should just stick with that,and be happy.

You,and I, well...we could just disagree all day, but where does it get ya,hmm? We all need positive energy!

byebye

Hi, Delilah...
Making you happy is beyond my power. I hope that you are, and I have tried to be as polite and responsive as I promised to be over the weekend when we found ourselves momentarily at a more congenial point.

But I refuse to allow you to own the framing for my position. This blog speaks to my consistent support of the Democratic Party and a progressive agenda; that is the root cause. School funding issues are an epiphenomenon.

Cheers.
-j

"Why no video of Len Katzman's off-hand LNG joke? It was not germane to the discussion."
Len Katzman,and LNG,will never be" germane to the discussion",as long as you have anything to do with any discussion involving Katzman.
Just as you have decided to jump on the Patrick Kennedy band wagon now, even tho' you have bashed him badly in the past,because now he has said something, (maybe just 1 thing), that is to your liking...very shallow. Case closed.

Hi, Delilah...
I think if you go back and read my "bashing" of Kennedy, that it had exclusively to do with a failure to communicate in a timely fashion the position he is now taking on the War. There are some things which actually can be corrected with a single communication, and his recent e-mail did just this.

Cheers.
-j

and have you gone back and read my comment on him? I don't think his injustice to society will ever be corrected by just a slap on the wrist, and more votes...(that he doesn't deserve).
Oops! now see what ya did ...you made me break my promise!
Sheesh...After all this...I forgot to mention(just so you don't think I'm a total witch), I have spent a lot of my own money donating to PHS, functions,fund raisers,football...etc...etc....I even buy LOTS of girl scout cookies, tho' I'm not much of a sweet eater, I give them to company,and family. Anything I can do (within my budget)is well worth it to help the children in the town that I love!

Bye(for real)

Hi John,
Thank you for acting as the voice of reason in the discussion of the Portsmouth School budget. I attended the Town Council meeting where the $700,000 cut was presented, and I was astounded. I can't imagine the thought process behind that decision, knowing that a Judge in a Court of Law had already directed that the budget be restored to legal levels. If the cut is approved by the Council, the budget will again be below the "legal" level. It makes no sense.
I would like to invite everyone who thinks the schools are full of luxury items to take the time to visit the Middle School or one of our elementary schools. After-school sports were cut several years ago from the Middle School, so we're not "wasting" money on that. The budget does not allow us to hold more than two after-school events each month, which means we have to pay to hold our PTO meetings at the school when there's concert or other event.
Also, let's keep in mind that Dr. Lusi has only been on the job one year. If you listen to what she's saying, she is very focused on fiscal responsibility and predictable funding and budgets. And we have a new finance director as well. Dr. Lusi can't change the past problems, but she can direct the future with our support. Let's at least start next year with a legal budget and give this new team a chance to do their jobs. I think it would be a good start.
thanks - Kris