Or, why at least one member of the Portsmouth Town Council will not want to visit the Ft. Worth Zoo.

Don't cry. Organize.

If you're a supporter of the Portsmouth schools concerned about last week's action by the Town Council to cut the budget by $1.2 million, I've set up a automatic e-mail, so you can contact them with one click by visiting this page.

And please remember that Save Our Schools will be having an information night at the Middle School on Wednesday, June 9, at 7pm. Organizer Dave Croston has put up a blog site that will be updated with further info.

And if you're on Facebook, Terri Cortvriend's group, Save the Arts and Sports in Portsmouth has been joined by over 425 people since it launched on Thursday.

When the Council asked Supt. Lusi to describe the impact of a $1.2M cut on the schools, Councilor Karen Gleason said, "Don't cry up there."

No. Don't cry. Organize.

School Committee presents budget to Council.

On a 5-2 party-line vote, the Portsmouth Town Council last night rejected the budget proposed by the School Committee and moved to flat fund the schools, an effective cut of $1.2M. The move, proposed by Jeff Plumb (R) and seconded by Karen Gleason (I) was supported by Republicans Keith Hamilton, Huck Little, and Peter McIntyre, and opposed by Democrats Dennis Canario and Jim Seveney.

School Finance Director Mark Dunham walked the Council through the details of the requested budget, which is available on the PSD site. Supt. Sue Lusi described the budget request by the schools as "extremely lean," and at $36.6M, it represented an actual increase of only $896K, or 2.51%. "This budget is not without pain at all levels," said Lusi. "Not only are we closig a school, but we're reducing staff where we don't have a decline in enrollment."

Lusi also asked, rhetorically, if the budget represented what the schools really need. "The answer is no," she said. "Private donations continue to fund what should be operational costs, it does not fund to levels identified in the performance audit, IT has not added the personnel recommended by Berkshire, and textbooks and materials are level funded at best."

However, despite successfully delivering a budget with an increase of only 2.5%, reductions in state aid pushed the actual requested town appropriation to $1.2M. So although the school budget is technically within the S3050 tax cap, state aid cuts on the Town side would require a combined budget exceeding the cap, something which proved a sticking point for the majority on the Council.

"We're at the cap and I don't think we can go to the cap," said Plumb, arguing for a hard-line on the budget. "We can't afford $1.2 million."

Council President McIntyre made it clear that the Council was sending a message. "The union has to pay attention to what happens in this room," he said. "Everybody has to bite the bullet. We have a great education system, [but] maybe we need to look at how we're going to save some money."

The two Democrats on the Council argued against the motion, and the back-and-forth among Canario, Seveney, and Plumb became heated. "It's nice to think that we can't go over the cap," said Canario, "But there are contractual obligations that have to be met." Added Seveney, "There are children's expectations that have to be met. The elephant in the room is the education of our children."

"I'll be the voice of the taxpayer," said Plumb.

"Just to level fund and not to meet contractual obligations is absurd," said Canario. "There is no thought process behind the motion at hand."

"There has been a lot of thought of the taxpayers," said Plumb. "People are calling me telling me they're losing their home."

The Council asked Supt. Lusi to offer an opinion on the implications of flat funding.

"Please don't cry up there," snarked Councilor Karen Gleason. I'm going to remember that in November, Tailgunner.

Lusi calmly said that the assumptions in the budget were a salary freeze for teachers other than required step increases, and she reminded the Council that teachers had no cost of living increase last year. She added that even if you eliminated all step increases, and cut every athletic and extracurricular program, that would still only equal about half of the $1.2M number. "But we can absolutely look at it," she said.

Dunham noted that cutting the $350K building and technology warrants would actually cost money by moving necessary items back into the operational budget. And Town Finance Director Dave Faucher described the cost to the town for debt service at just $19K this year. "So we get rid of $700K [of buying power] to save $19K?" asked Seveney.

After additional heated discussion, the motion passed, 5-2, which will force the School Committee to come back to the Council for the second and third rounds of the budget process with an amended request. The next round of the budget process will be the "provisional" approval, and the last step is the final public hearing when the budget ordinance is enacted.

School Committee chair Dick Carpender expressed disappointment at the Council's action. "I'm certainly shocked," he said. "The budget we developed was a good, lean budget at 2.5%."

I asked Dave Faucher about the implications for the average taxpayer of funding the $1.2M request. His back-of-envelope estimate — which I promised to characterize as such — would be $120 a year, for the average taxpayer with at $350K house. I asked Councilor Plumb whether $120 a year was really going to drive Portsmouth residents out of their homes.

"Well, I'm not $120," said Plumb, arguing that for some in town, this really would be prohibitive. "It all adds up," he said. According to the Vision Appraisal site, a house owned by Jeff Plumb on Sandy Point Ave is valued at $657K. We could use round numbers and call that $20/month.

Editorial:
On August 19, 2006, 1,284 Portsmouth voters at the last tent meeting cut an arbitrary $1.1M from the school budget, throwing the district into deficit and forcing a Caruolo action which restored half the funds. Last night, the Republican majority on the Council did the Portsmouth Concerned Citizens one better, cutting an arbitrary $1.2M and flat funding the schools in an act of pure political theater.

There was no acknowledgement of the work the committee had done crafting the budget, no concrete recommendations for reduction, just a command to come back asking for less, even though it was established that even a complete salary freeze and eliminating all extracurriculars wouldn't close the gap.

If you're a parent, or someone who cares about education in our town, you should be outraged.

For the average taxpayer, we're talking ten bucks a month. That's a couple of trips to Dunkin' Donuts. Are we really saying that this is going to force people from their homes? If there are people on fixed incomes, let's deal with that through our existing tax exemptions, not use that as an excuse to gut the school budget.

We will have two more bites at this apple, in the provisional budget and the final hearing, and I strongly encourage all residents of Portsmouth to let the Council know where you stand on this. You can find their phone numbers here.

Resources:
School budget request on District web site

A reminder: Tonight at 7pm in Town Hall, the Portsmouth Town Council will hear from the School Committee and administration on the proposed budget for next year.

If you are interested in the schools, you'll want to be there. While this is not the final vote on the budget, this is an occasion where the Council — or other interested parties — can attempt to shape the bottom-line number.

Too vague?

Do you have a perspective on the savings from closing Elmhurst? Do you think we need to go to cap? Do you support funding technology in the schools? If you don't want the people who yell the most to get what they want (cough...PCC...cough) you should either show up, or send an e-mail to the Council. You can reach them at these addresses: hlittle@portsmouthri.com, dcanario@portsmouthri.com, kgleason@portsmouthri.com, khamilton@portsmouthri.com, jplumb@portsmouthri.com, jseveney@portsmouthri.com.

Full disclosure: I am an appointed member of the Facilities Committee and a volunteer member of the district Technology Committee.

At tomorrow night's Portsmouth Town Council meeting, Portsmouth Concerned Citizens (PCC) President Larry Fitzmorris has an agenda item asking the Council to place a change to the Town Charter eliminating partisan elections on the November ballot.

I'll admit — as a member of the Democratic "core," I certainly have a dog in this fight. But I would argue that, objectively, there are good reasons to oppose this on the basis of the information it would withhold from voters.

I believe in an informed electorate. Why would the PCC, which nominally supports transparency, support an initiative to deny information to voters? Just ask yourself: Who benefits? Not candidates from any party. Not the voters who will know less about their choices.

Gosh, could it be that the PCC might think they'd find it easier to get people onto the Council and School Committee if they didn't have those pesky "D" or "R" labels to worry about? Naaah, that would be just too cynical. Right?

I can't make the meeting — tomorrow night is the first meeting of the school transition advisory committee — so I've sent this note to the Town Council. Hope you'll consider speaking out as well. You can reach the Town Council at these e-mail addresses: hlittle@portsmouthri.com, dcanario@portsmouthri.com, kgleason@portsmouthri.com, khamilton@portsmouthri.com, jplumb@portsmouthri.com, jseveney@portsmouthri.com

To the Council:
The proposed PCC change to the Town Charter to covert local elections to "non-partisan" will deprive the taxpayers of Portsmouth of important information about candidates, and should be rejected.

As a voter, I want to know as much about candidates as possible when making an informed decision. Stripping party affiliation does not benefit the voter -- it only benefits candidates who do not want this information disclosed.

The PCC motto is a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson: "Information is the currency of Democracy." I urge the Council to respect that ideal, rather than the PCC's current tactics. Please do not support this change to our Charter.

Best Regards.
-John G. McDaid

Full disclosure: I am a life-long Democrat and a member of the Portsmouth Democratic Town Committee. I also like to know who I'm voting for.

Council hears resident's questions on wastewater plan.

By unanimous vote tonight, the Portsmouth Town Council decisively rejected sewers, instead directing that the town administration bring back a plan for a wastewater management district [WMD] by July 1. An overflow crowd of at least 150 filled the chambers and lobby, with a handful crouched outside around the windows, straining to hear. There were at least a dozen carrying anti-sewer signs, and there were multiple rounds of applause for those who took to the podium to voice opposition to sewers.

Town Hall was so crowded that I spent the first part of the meeting watching through a window from the parking lot, and only managed to slip into the room after the Council went into executive session with the attorney they had brought in to advise them on compliance with relevant environmental regulations, Christopher D'Ovidio.

From the outset, it was clear that the Council was listening. Councilor Keith Hamilton almost immediately made a motion to direct the town administration to return with a wastewater district plan that would bring the Town into compliance with Department of Environmental Management and EPA regulations, and although there was much agonizing and parsing of every clause in the questions that followed, at the end of the night, it was clear that both the text of the motion and the intent of the Council was aimed at bringing the matter to closure.

"We need to stop driving the nail into the coffin," said councilor Dennis Canario. "Let's start the process."

But it seemed nobody wanted to take the Council at their word. The first question from the audience sought reassurance that "sewers were off the table." Hamilton replied that the motion was to go forward with a WMD. [Editorial note: Normally, following good journalistic practice, I'd identify the speaker, but last night's meeting was a bit loose, with not everyone providing their name and address at the podium, and, frankly, given the crowd noise, I was not always able to hear those who did.]

Larry Fitzmorris, president of the PCC, one of the groups which has opposed sewers, asked for the Council to distribute the motion in writing. "Much pivots on the language," he said. I did see the Council make copies, but none of them made it to the back of the room where I was. "We need to understand that you understand that this is not the back door into sewers," said Fitzmorris.

The council seemed pretty clear in their responses. "We're certainly not here to do that," replied Council president Pete McIntyre. "This is a motion against sewers, as far as I am concerned," said Councilor Jeff Plumb. "I am not and will not support sewers," said Dennis Canario. "There isn't anybody sitting here that's going to back into anything," said Seveney.

And the mistrust was not aimed at the Council alone. Several people asked questions about who would set the standards and who would do the water quality testing to verify that the WMD was working.

"What if someone takes a dump off the side of a boat and says the water's dirty," asked one resident of Common Fence Point. (Bet you don't see THAT quote in the Daily News.)

Then Tailgunner Gleason started offering amendments to the motion. First, she proposed adding "town-wide" to modify WMD. Then she wanted to add language specifically referring to previous reports which provided support for a WMD. Both of those were accepted. Then she tried to add a clause saying that the town would only need to comply with "current" water quality standards, and that's where the the Council called on attorney D'Ovidio.

Adding such a clause, said D'Ovidio, would not immunize the Town from changes in the law. "You have to comply," he said. "You can't go back and say in 2015 that we're in compliance with 2010 regulations."

With everyone satisfied, the Council voted unanimously to proceed with the WMD plan, and about 130 of the attendees left.

The remainder of the meeting was anticlimactic. Gleason's agenda item on the Island Park skate area had been pushed to a future meeting while I was still in the parking lot, and the PCC's proposed charter changes were also moved.

Only other item of interest is that there will be a workshop on May 3 where the Council will discuss the status of the Town Center project.

The Portsmouth Town Council this evening tabled a request from skateboard area opponents to abandon plans for the Island Park playground. By a 4-3 vote, with Dennis Canario, Huck Little, and Karen Gleason in the minority, the Council moved to table any action pending the return of all donations to the Town for safekeeping.

"We took an action," said Jim Seveney, referring to the original approval last February. "Money was collected. The priority at this juncture is for the town to understand the status. The donors, I'm sure, are wondering what happened to it."

The Council seemed unmoved by Brian Whittier's argument that Portsmouth's zoning regulations would be violated by siting a skating area in the playground. "According to zoning laws, playgrounds are special uses," said Whittier, who enumerated the guidelines such use must meet: not detrimental, compatible, not a nuisance or hazard. "These are all issues that are going on," said Whittier.

Perhaps I read Article III section D (4) of Portsmouth's Zoning Regulations wrong (which is always possible; IANAL) but here's what it says:

"Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance to the contrary, any structures, buildings and land owned, leased or used by the Town of Portsmouth may be erected, enlarged, or used by the Town of Portsmouth in the performance of its governmental functions, in any district, and said structures, buildings or lands so erected, enlarged, or used shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance."
— Full Zoning Ordinance

After the vote, the Council took a 5-minute recess, and opponents of the skate area approached the dais to continue arguing their case with the Council. When a reporter tried to take a picture, he was told, "We don't need blog stuff here," and "Go sit down with your friends."

I've been scrupulous in not quoting things said outside public meetings. These were people talking to the Council, in chambers, during a recess. I've been covering Portsmouth politics for more than three years, and I've never had anyone speak to me like that during a session. I'll let you judge how this goes to credibility.

Following the recess, there was an interesting discussion sparked by Larry Fitzmorris of the Portsmouth Concerned Citizens (PCC). He asserted that the modification of an agenda item he had requested back in January was a violation of the Charter. His original agenda item, he said, had explicitly asked the Council to end consideration of sewers, but the amended item said only "Address Council Re: wastewater management district."

This change, said Fitzmorris, "Essentially defeats my right to address the Council," since, he said, it is within the Council President's role to limit discussion to the agenda item. And, as someone who's sat through a few of these meetings, I can tell you the way an agenda item is cast is particularly important when it comes to what the Council may *vote* on, since according to RI Open Meetings Law, the subject must be properly advertised.

Town Solicitor Andre D'Andrea argued that it should be within the purview of the Council to determine appropriateness and wordsmith the actual items. The public, even in the Charter and the procedures enacted later, "is limited to the right to ask," said D'Andrea. "In what form [it is placed on the agenda] is within the sound discretion of the President and the Clerk." While he seemed to admit that in this case, he might have phrased the item better when rewriting it, he continued to maintain the right of modification. "The right to petition government is not the same as the right to publicity."

Former Town Councilor Len Katzman, who had drafted the procedure in 2006, spoke in support of Mr. Fitzmorris's position, and noted that his original proposal had been "That the Town Clerk may not refuse the request without consulting with the Town Administrator, Town Solicitor, and President. It shouldn't be one person's solitary discretion." He urged the Council to revisit the rule and spell out what the procedure was for denying a request. "It should be hard," said Katzman, "But it should be written down."

In other business, Tailgunner Gleason moved that the Council should release the Woodard & Curran wastewater report — which had already been released last month.

When another council member questioned the form of her motion, she said, "You're making a mountain out of a molehill." There was general laughter.

Didn't make the Portsmouth Town Council meeting Monday night where the wastewater report was on the agenda, but the Sakonnet Times has good coverage (worth reading the comments, too) and the meeting even got a writeup in the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition (RISC) newsletter.

In an occasionally heated two-hour discussion Monday night, the Portsmouth Town Council heard from supporters and opponents of a skating area in the Island Park playground and referred the matter back to the community for further work. At issue are plans to add a dedicated skateboarding area to the park, which currently includes baseball and soccer fields, a basketball court, and a play area for young children. A prior effort by an ad-hoc committee tasked by the Council with developing a solution fell apart over the past month.

Full disclosure: I am a member of the leadership team of the group supporting the skate park.

"You're a neighborhood," said Councilor Jim Seveney. "Go back and talk to each other." He also noted that the Council was being put in a position where any decision would anger one side, and urged both sides to compromise. "The real losers here are the children."

"I don't want neighbors to be upset," said Councilor Jeff Plumb. "A compromise is what we're looking for. Let's come up with a square footage."

Lori Rinkel and Cheryl Augistine, representing the supporters of the skate area, sought clarification from the Council on their prior votes. Town Solicitor Andre D'Andrea advised the Council that their vote in February granting approval to apply for a Community Development Block Grant could be "interpreted as a vote to support" the building of the park, and that nothing changed in subsequent meetings.

While this appeared to settle question of the Council's historical approval, several Councilors indicated they might change their minds in light of new evidence. At least three — Karen Gleason, Huck Little, and Peter McIntyre — expressed some skepticism about the location.

Island Park resident Brian Whittier spoke against the proposed facility, arguing that abuttors were opposed, and that there was already an "infiltration of people from outside the neighborhood," given that the police had "seen new faces" there.

Trying to get a sense of the scope for compromise, Plumb asked, "Would you be opposed to [a skate area the size of] 100 square feet?"

"Yes," Whittier replied.

Portsmouth Police Chief Lance Hebert rose to clarify his position. "I am not to be put in the middle," he said. He reported that the Island Park area had seen increased calls to the police, "due to the conflicting sides. Obviously, a serious problem." He said that any large skate park should not be located in a residential area, and reiterated that his original approval had been for an area "small enough for the kids of Island Park."

Without pointing a finger at either side, Councilor Plumb expressed concern that the police were being called without good reason. "Please stop doing that," he said.

IP resident Bev Kelly showed the Council a Newport Daily News article on the playground dating from its opening in 1996 which she said mentioned a skate park as a future enhancement. She also told the Council that during the ad-hoc committee meetings, a compromise had been proposed comprising a flat concrete slab half the size of the basketball court and removable equipment subject to a probationary period. "If problems arose," said Kelly, the equipment could be removed and, "the kids can play hopscotch."

Gleason pressed on the location and the earmarking of donations raised to fund the skate area. "Are you willing to consider using [the money raised] elsewhere in the community?"

Rinkel said that she would rather go back and ask donors, and stressed that the money had been raised for a specific purpose. "The kids in Island Park were promised a skate park back in February," she said.

"Go below 800 square feet," said Gleason. "Then come back with a real plan."

Opponents were not happy with the evident lack of progress. "It appears that we're back to square zero," Whittier said.

"The amount [of people] against is obvious," said resident Gary Hahn. "They were never really informed."

Lisa Whittier, an officer of the Island Park Crime Watch Committee, spoke to the Council about the funds raised for the park, currently in the Crime Watch bank account. She questioned why the Council should ask about the money given that they were, "a private committee."

Seveney noted that the grants were applied for "under the auspices of the town." Turning over the money for the town to hold in escrow, he said, was "the right thing to do."

"It's up to the committee," Lisa Whittier replied. "It's the committee's money." She said they would need to put it to a vote at their January 25th meeting.

Asked for his legal opinion, Town Solicitor D'Andrea said, "There's already one lawyer involved." He noted that the expense of resolving the question might well be more than the $7K at issue and said, "Only a court would be able to intervene."

Chief Hebert urged the Council to separate the Crime Watch committee from responsibility for the playground, and that the two had been mingled as a historical accident. "The crime watch group doesn't need any money," said Hebert.

The council asked representatives from the two groups to schedule a meeting and involve the whole community.

At this point, Andrew Kelly and I rose to suggest to the Council the formation of an official Island Park recreation committee. However, while there seemed to be some interest in considering for a Town-wide committee addressing recreation, there was no support for the approach at this time.

In subsequent e-mail exchanges among the leaders of the two groups and members of the Council, the community session was scheduled for January 27, 7pm at Town Hall.

Editorial note: This is story 3 of 4 on Monday night's meeting. Coming up: The Portsmouth Economic Development Committee's annual report.

Update: Sakonnet Times coverage. Check out the "Support the Island Park Skate Park" page on Facebook.