Guestblogs: Council defers action on School fund balance

From Maddie_C (promoted from comments):

The council voted to table the issue until early May so that they can hear from their lawyer and maybe understand better what the state is going to do.

There was a lot of talk about what the council can and can't do under the law with a reference to Rhode Island general laws section 16-7-23 which says of the school department's surplus: "All state and local funds unexpended by the end of the fiscal year of appropriation shall remain a surplus of the school committee and shall not revert to the municipality." That, plus school department attorney Updegrove read a section from the town charter that says the council has the power: "To transfer appropriations within the Town budget (exclusive of the School Department budget) not to exceed the total appropriated."

Taken together, that makes it seem like the council can't vote to take the school surplus money, but Town Finance director Faucher said he had spoken to the town solicitor who said they could take the money. The solicitor wasn't there to address it.

So, that uncertainty along with the fact that they'll know more about what the state is doing if they wait a bit more leading to the motion to table.

From Terri Cortvriend:

The Town Council met with the School Committee this evening prior to the School Committee’s regular meeting to discuss the fate of a surplus of $217K on the school side from the end of the 07/08 fiscal year. The Town Council has asked the school department to turn over this money to close a projected gap in the Town's current budget, but the school department has factored this surplus into the budget it just submitted for the 09/10 fiscal year. There was a good turnout of parents in the Council chambers, many from Elmhurst who wanted to hear the discussion.

The legalities were discussed at length. Title 16-7-23 clearly states that the money is to remain under the school department’s operational control. It was put forth by the Town Administration that while the town council could not take the surplus, it has been advised by counsel that it can reduce the school department’s appropriation for this current fiscal year. The town’s solicitor was not present to speak to this but school department's lawyer, Mr. Updegrove, was on hand and read from our Town Charter language that would seem to prohibit the action the Town is requesting. He also challenged the wisdom of voting to make a decision that would put the school department in a situation that they may feel they have to challenge through the legal process putting the town back where it was after the Tent Meeting.

Councilors Jim Seveney and Dennis Carnario expressed concern over robbing Peter to pay Paul and questioned the legality of the action. School Committee Chair Dick Carpenter and Dr. Lusi suggested that it was premature to act on the request with so many unknowns on both the school side and the town side. They asked for the discussion to be continued until early June where everyone would have a better sense of where they were. Dr. Lusi and Mr. Carpenter both personally pledged a willingness to work with the Town Council and put forth the idea that with more time they may be able to meet the council halfway.

This observer sensed a desire on the part of most council members to work cooperatively or to at least put off an outright confrontation between itself and the school committee, with the exception of Councilor Karen Gleason who put forth a motion to reduce the school department's appropriation. She reminded the school department that times are hard and that they should acknowledge that programs will need to be cut and that it was time to get back to the basics "of reading and writing and arithmetic." She admonished the school department for not being thankful that the town has always been so generous to the school department and that because the town gave money to the schools back in 2005 to close the gap that Dr Lusi discovered when she first arrived on the job, now was the time for the school department to return the favor. In the end, Gleason never got her motion voted on; Councilor Huck Little made a motion to table the discussion until the council could hear directly from its legal counsel. The matter was continued until May 4th at 6:00 pm in advance of a Council budget meeting already on the calendar. Only one member of the public was permitted to speak last night but in the interest of time Mr. McIntyre told the others that the Council would hear from them at the next meeting.

This observer stayed for the school committee meeting that directly followed the highlight of which was the student spotlight shown on Caleb Hilyard, a second grader from Hathaway, who organized a funding raising effort called “Change for Change” that was successful in raising $4,150 that will be used to build a new house in Haiti. It sounded as if the whole school supported Caleb in his efforts and the fundraising was turned into a learning opportunity for the second grade as they graphed and charted the money being raised in the form of a model house that the kids could watch being built brick by brick as the money came in. Members of Caleb’s class were on hand to support and acknowledge his hard work. It was a very gratifying and uplifting to learn of the success of this project and be included as an observer in the celebration of Caleb Hilyard.

The rest of the meeting was short and pretty uneventful. Ms. Tague presented the February and March Financials and projected that while adjustments would need to be made from various lines to cover shortages overall the department was on track to complete the 08/09 fiscal year on budget and perhaps with a small surplus (Perhaps this will be $ that can be used by the town?????)

The SC ratified a contract for natural gas that is projected to save the school department approximately $67K in the next 2 years. The food service contract for the next four years was also awarded to Chartwell’s (our existing provider) with no discussion. Despite a late start the meeting was adjourned before 9:00pm.

Editorial note: Many, many thanks to both Maddie_C and Terri for pitching in with coverage last night.

Comments

I wold like to add two comments to what happened at the meeting.

I want to address the thought put out there both by a commenter (interested observer) to the previous post and also said by Karen Gleason last night. It's about the thought that the town gave money to the schools back in 2005 to close the gap that Dr Lusi discovered when she first arrived on the job. The "interested observer" comment said that "Mr. McDaid points out "good" fiscal management within the course of the last few years but fails to point out when the "town" gave over $500,000 mid year a few years back to correct their issues."

I've lived in this town a long time and every year the school department goes to the council with a budget request and EVERY YEAR the council votes to approve less than what the schools asked for. Every year the school department budget is cut from what the request was. This was true even in the tent meeting year when the court restored the tent meeting cut, it was still less than the budget requested by the department. Most years the council cuts about three to four hundred thousand dollars, and I remember one year it was 500 thousand and one year was almost a million dollars. So it isn't true that the town is always "generous" to the schools as Gleason said, but in fact ALWAYS appropriates less money than the schools requested. So the fact that the town had to fill a gap in 2005 is nothing more than fixing a problem that the town created by always underfunding the schools year after year.

the second comment I'd like to make is that I was dissappointed that there wasn't any talk last night about what the town would have to cut if they don't get the $217K, or what the schools would have to cut if they gave up the $217K. the way I look at it, there is a problem with funding that is impacting the town and we, as a whole town and not as two "sides", have to lay it all out and see what the impact of cuts would be and then we can set priorities. Bob Driscoll basically refused to say what would have to go if the town doesn't get the $217K. Dick Carpender and Sue Lusi were a little more forthcoming by refering to Elmherst and extra-curriculars, but still didn't state specifics.

I sympathize that these people might have good reasons to shy away from talking in public about who would be layed off or what services eliminated. but unless both sides say what the consequences are going forward one way or another, how are we the people supposed to weigh the pros and cons about what is best, let alone the council members who have to make that decision? I think the leadership and administrations for both the town and schools need to be more frank with the public.

Maddie,

Thank you for your further discussion. I might suggest you pick the phone and call our elected officials and ask them. You can at least send an email. As for what steps would need to be taken by the town, my guess would be, in no particular order, furlough days, layoffs, road repair put off, no lifeguards at the beach, who knows. I am intrigued by Ms Cortivend's comments on a possible surplus from the 08-09 budget.

As far as cutting the budget goes. You must realize that the whole process is a game. You never go into a negotiation asking for what you "really" need. You always ask for more and hope you get what you need. I would bet that Dr. Lusi and Mr. Carpender have another set of numbers that they can live with. Just look at this year as a case in point. You stated that the previous council cut the school budget last year and yet they are running a surplus. Just food for thought.

In response to Interested Observer: The Finance Director merely told the committee that they were looking good to hit the target and that there may be a small surplus but no amount was identified.

I would like to point out that there is a difference between having a number you can survive on and having a number that truely meets the needs that have been repeatedly indentified in the NIACS Report, the Berkshire report, the future search etc. I know for a fact that there are recommendations in all of these reports related to reading teachers, guidance counselors, library books, text books and supplies that the school department hasn't even been able to consider fully funding.

An attempt was made in the development of the current fiscal year budget to address the shortfall in the supply line, however when the state started talking about reducing aid for the current year the administrators were all told not to expend more than 80% of their appropriation - so much for addressing the problem - and this is not the first year that this has happened since I have been observing.

So if the school department manages to come in under budget they will be seen as not really needing the money and if they go over budget then to some in town they are seen as poorly managed, dishonest and breaking the law. It seems as if they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Unfortunately that's the way the cookie crumbles in the world of politics.

Hi, interested observer...
You may be right, and the political process may be the "game" that you, who have seen it all, can warn us about. But I do not believe it. Politics is nothing but people acting together. And it is possible they can act in good faith, and tell the truth, and collectively achieve shared goals. The level of citizen engagement around issues in this town is really great -- whether I always agree with the folks taking their turn at the podium or not, I celebrate their involvement.

I don't believe in secret sets of numbers and backroom deals. It's a small town; nobody keeps secrets *that* well. But I don't take that on faith: I show up at meetings and talk to people. Cynical, paranoid interpretations are ultimately a way of disempowering people, and I don't think Portsmouth buys that. This is still the kind of community where people can make change happen. Look at Sal Carceller and the Tent Meeting, or Preserve Portsmouth.

This land was made for you and me.

Cheers.
-j

John,

Are you saying that "Cynical, paranoid interpretations" don't exist in this town?!?!?

IO

Hi, interested observer...
You're quite right, we have plenty of cynical paranoid interpretations. Exhibit A would be wastewater. I'm just saying that it's possible to get beyond them.

Cheers.
-j