Cranston School Committee Approves a Caruolo Action

From today's Providence Journal:

The School Committee voted late Tuesday night to sue the city for $4.9 million in additional education aid, setting the stage for a costly, bruising legal battle.

The committee became the second in the state this year, after the West Warwick board, to authorize a lawsuit seeking more cash from a local municipality in what is known as a Caruolo action.

* * *

Talk of a Caruolo action has been swirling since the beginning of the fiscal year, when school officials said they could not run the schools with the $125.3 million they got from federal, state and local sources.

The school district has maintained, for months, that it would need something on the order of $4 million more from the city to meet its obligations.

But city officials have long speculated that the school district would be willing to settle for something closer to $2 million in the end.

That speculation, it now seems, was faulty.

Is it too obvious to point out that this could have been avoided if the School Committee had structured budgets and executed contracts that were within the means of the city?

After Further Thought

I've most likely been overstating the number of Tiverton teachers who stand to lose their jobs if the union remains implacable. Thirty-four notices of potential layoffs went out to meet a deadline; one position was eliminated in the school budget as passed; so I've been saying that intransigence might result in the actual layoffs of the other thirty-three.

The probability, however, is that the school committee sought to allow itself options should circumstances require positions to be eliminated. Their situation would have to be dire indeed for such a large portion of the workforce to be let go.

My point remains, though: union persistence will cost some members dearly, and a negotiating collective that is willing to push things that far would seek to soak up any new funds that become available.

Out of the Din

Throughout my adult years, I'd never so much as considered sending my children to private school (parochial or otherwise) until very recently. Even my particular tincture of religious faith leads me strongly to feel that spending one's formative years among a cross-section of the local society — an opportunity that my own experience led me to take as an apt description of the public school environment — is a valuable component of education. Yet, yesterday our attempts to move our children outside of Tiverton's school district met with success.

After receiving my wife's call, in the morning, the rest of the day brought a noticeable increase in my stress level, involving anxiety about the now-certain new monthly bill. But what is one to do? The headline at the top of this week's Sakonnet Times is "Teachers reject two-year offer":

Tiverton teachers Monday afternoon "clearly expressed disapproval" of a two-year contract proposal put forward by the School Committee Friday, March 14, according to Amy Mullen, the union's president and Pocasset School teacher.

The school committee's contract offer was not proposed for ratification, and no vote was taken, said Ms. Mullen. Rather, it was discussed with "roughly 192 members present" at what union leadership characterized as an "emergency union meeting" at Green Valley Country Club in Portsmouth that began at 4 p.m. Monday and lasted nearly an hour and a half.

"The membership let us know it was not acceptable," Ms. Mullen said.

The complaint is that, when increasing healthcare costs are factored in, step 10 teachers will see minimal increases. Me, I can't keep my head from shaking: These teachers know the problems facing our state and our town. They know that money is extremely tight — so much so that their unreasonable demands will require the district to send out up to three dozen pink slips. Yet they persist.

And they persist in this (from an anonymous letter in the print edition's "Web Words" section):

Teachers, at this point why start anything to benefit the students. As parents of seniors, we know first hand you have disappointed the students all year. Some of the teachers were unprofessional, discussing the contract situation in the classroom, threatening to cancel events such as homecoming, dances and prom. You claim to be fulfilling your contract responsibilities, but as far as the students and parents are concerned, you failed! The seniors worked hard on their senior projects and, at this point, knowing they will not be graded by the teachers for their presentation portion of the project, their enthusiasm has diminished. This just adds to the list of disappointments such as mock trial, math team, class advisers, yearly art gallery shows, class trips, National Honor Society attendance, College Fair, limited letters of recommendation and limited after school help.Fortunately for the students, replacements were found and many of the above activities continued due to the principal and his office staff and concerned parents. Yet again you try to use the seniors as pawns! So you're not going to show up at graduation, who cares, it's too late. You lost the respect of most students and parents.

What responsible parent wouldn't reconsider the value of a public school education when faced with such an environment? I can't be alone in veritably itching for a concrete opportunity to fight for a school choice/voucher system.

Evil Men in Tiverton

A typo in Tom Killin Dalglish's Sakonnet Times piece on the Tiverton police department sexual harassment suits is just too ripe for speculation of the subconscious not to note it:

Defendants named in the lawsuits besides the Town of Tiverton are James Amarantes (the former town treasurer), Louis Durfee (president of the Town Council), Mr. Steckman (the former town administrator), and Chief Blakey.

It's man versus woman in Tiverton, with James, Louis, Glenn, and Thomas named in the suits. Except, of course, that Louis is actually Louise.

As I said, it's just a typo, but it's good for a conservative chuckle, anyway.

Woonsocket: No Bid Vroom-Vrooms Go Bye-Bye

Two weeks ago, an ethics complaint was filed against Mayor Susan Menard for her role in the city's no-bid lease of four motorcycles from her son-in-law's dealership. She announced soon thereafter that she would be retiring in June.

Fast forward to Monday night's City Council meeting at which Mayor Menard was a surprise show. This Providence Journal article, devoted exclusively to the pleasantry of her "good-bye" comments, missed a couple of other developments during the meeting which the Valley Breeze picked up. The first was the presentation of an audit revealing that 1.) contrary to prior representations, the city is operating in the red and 2.) the amount of the deficit is not known due to poor record keeping and accounting practices by certain city officials and departments. (They "borrowed" $503,000 from the pension fund ...?)

The second item of business that failed to make the ProJo article was a request by a Council member for a copy of the motorcycle lease and an inquiry by the Council President as to the present location of the motorcycles which are the subject of the ethics complaint. The city solicitor, replying to the former inquiry, stated that the lease could not be found in city records nor, perplexingly, did the leasing company have a copy of same.

No reply was apparently offered at the meeting to the Council President's question. However, the Woonsocket Police Department informed me this morning that while the motorcycles are still in Woonsocket at the moment, they will shortly be on their way back to the leasing company as that company has been told to come and pick them up.

Still outstanding is the $10,000 [Edit - commenter John has provided the correct figure] $40,000 paid to date by the City of Woonsocket towards the leasing of the motorcycles. If the $10,000 $40,000 is subsequently returned, the motorcycles go back and the lease mysteriously never surfaces, does the ethics bell, as Dave Kane phrased it, get unrung?

UPDATE

As to who authorized the return of the motorcycles to the leasing company, someone in attendance at the City Council meeting Monday night has advised that it was the Woonsocket Public Safety Director who did so - "that would mean the Mayor".

Tiverton Harassment Suits

And things just get worse for the town of Tiverton:

Three discrimination suits against the town filed by female employees in Police Department resurrect the controversy involving former Town Administrator W. Glenn Steckman 3rd and his failed attempt to fire Police Chief Thomas Blakey.

Blakey was reinstated by the Town Council nearly a year ago.

Both Steckman and Blakey are named as defendants in the civil rights complaints filed by two civilian dispatchers and a former patrolwoman during the past six months in U.S. District Court, Providence.

The dispatchers and the police officer all allege that Blakey subjected them to sexual harassment and, once they complained, varying degrees of retaliation. The police officer, Amy Barboza, was fired. ...

After Blakey's reinstatement, cracks emerged in the relationship between Steckman and the Town Council, which ultimately bought out about 11 months remaining on his contract for $40,000. ...

The terms of the agreement were sealed until after Steckman's last day, on Feb. 22. They include a stipulation that the town will pay Steckman's expenses in connection with his role as a defendant in any lawsuits brought against the town.

Normally, I'd be inclined to point out to the women that their lawsuits, which are based on incidents from some time ago, will likely have the effect of putting people who have absolutely nothing to do with any harassment out of work and costing others their homes. It's kind of hard to make that moral case, though, when the alleged perpetrator still holds his job — and that deliberately against the wishes of the town administrator.

(I should stress, however, that I wasn't paying attention to local politics when this controversy erupted, so I can't say but that the four council members who voted to reinstate Police Chief Thomas Blakey were in the right.)

Advice for the Lenders

Reading news of Providence Mayor Cicilline's intention to borrow money from the federal government to deal with foreclosed neighborhoods brings to mind, once again, the fact that debt is excluded from municipalities' spending increase maximums.

Standing on a sidewalk lined with boarded-up houses in the city's West End, Mayor David N. Cicilline yesterday announced plans to seek $10 million in federal loans to purchase, rehabilitate and, if necessary, demolish foreclosed properties that are blighting city neighborhoods.

The federal funds would be administered through the city's redevelopment agency as part of the Housing Trust to provide no-interest and low-interest loans to purchase or fix up properties that otherwise might not qualify for financing. The funds also could be used to board up vacant houses, demolish those which are deemed beyond saving and improve the city's tracking system for foreclosed and vacant properties.

My advice to the federal lender is to administer the loans personally. Rhode Island ain't so good at such things.

More Taxing than Expected

A Sakonnet Times story that does not appear to be online confirms my suspicions: Tiverton's going to raise my taxes even more than the previously suggested maximum. Apparently, "the big jump is in the debt service on school bonds" (a 45% increase), followed by an estimated 3.2% increase for the school district. Of course, Rhode Island law encourages increased debt, because it is exempt from legislated increase limits.

Also notable is the passivity with which article conveys tax increase information:

That budget figure factors out to a new tax rate of $11.59 per every $1,000 of assessed valuation for Tiverton property owners, [interim Town Administrator James Goncalo] told the council. The current tax rate is $10,26 per $1,000, while the year before ('06–'07) it was $9.62 per $1,000.

Nobody raises the taxes, they just "factor out."

The rest of the council's budget discussion will be carried out behind closed doors because "further budget reductions might affect staffing and/or labor contracts." The party's over; expect a fight.

Still Going to School

A cost-benefit analysis of sorts has led me to give up on the Tiverton town council. I simply can't afford to devote that much time to such an unprofitable activity (especially if my taxes are going to continue to climb).

Still, the school committee remains sufficiently interesting and important that I'll continue to make the time for it. That despite the likelihood that my children won't long be in the public system. (Another matter that will require me to maximize the profitability of my hours.)

It'll wear you down, this local government participation. The latest cuts that Superintendent Bill Rearick has proposed include a hundred dollars for repair here and there, $2,500 each from a couple of testing accounts. And yet the teachers are working to rule.

Now Rearick is talking about the NECAP results and pointing out that Tiverton High School was #11 in the state overall. But 72% of the kids aren't proficient in math. "It's certainly not a cure-all, but money would help us — push our kids and get our teachers additional training." Now a teacher is explaining that the kids have no incentive to apply themselves to the test.

Rearick: "It's a new test that assumes that students have basic skills and tests them on higher level thinking."

A principal: "Not sure whether this is a valid test." Apparently, low-scoring kids said they had plenty of time for the test (because they hadn't been prepared for a signficant number of the questions anyway), while higher-scoring students felt that they didn't have enough time.

Stunningly, nobody in the auditorium seems to feel any sense of urgency to improve these math scores. Not a single specific request or declaration concerning steps to improve them was voiced. Some stuff is up to the state. Some stuff has to do with the test. Some stuff involves the alignment of the stars.

The superintendent and some committee members congratulated the staff and teachers for doing so comparatively well. What? Either the test is invalid or our children are being abysmally cheated when it comes to math.

Can I possibly be the only person in some way connected to the Tiverton school district who thinks this matter shouldn't be brushed off the table with just a few minutes of mitigation?

Susan Menard: ProJo Omits the No Bid Vroom-Vrooms

Woonsocket Mayor Susan Menard will be retiring on June 15.

The Providence Journal got that much right. And they kindly mentioned her accomplishments. What they left out was that an ethics complaint had been filed against her this week. Yes, the same newspaper that repeatedly and breathlessly speculated about some not-so-nefarious reasons for Bev Najarian to have stepped down as the Governor's Director of Administration left this fairly significant development - some might even term a "factor" - out of their article reporting the retirement of Mayor Menard.

From the Valley Breeze:

In his two-page complaint, backed by various "proof" documents, [former police detective sergeant and City Council candidate Edward] Roy alleges that Menard violated state ethics law by her involvement in the process of leasing four Harley-Davidson motorcycles through her son-in-law's dealership, Paramount Harley Davidson, in Framingham, Mass.

Roy said in the complaint that Paramount, with Menard's son-in-law James Pilavin as a principal owner, is not the dealership contracted to the city by the Greater Boston Police Council, and leasing through the company "is an egregious violation of the Rhode Island General Laws".

We should point out here that this was by no means a one-way transaction: James Pilavin made two contributions totalling $1,750 to Mayor Menard's re-election campaign.

The motorcycles were for the use of the Woonsocket Police Department. The funding for the lease did not come from city coffers but from the Justice Department's Local Law Enforcement Block Grants ("LLEBGs"). Nevertheless, the lease had to be offered as an RFP. It appears that this did not happen.

Speaking at Monday's City Council meeting, council President Leo Fontaine said the timeline for the lease of the motorcycles last month is especially disturbing to him.

* At the Feb. 18 City Council meeting, Fontaine said the council asked why the city didn't go out to bid, as the City Charter stipulates for such leases.

* On Feb. 19, he said, a quote came in from Boston Harley-Davidson.

* Now it has been discovered, according to Fontaine, that a $10,000 two-year lease payment was sent to Paramount on Feb. 18.

"Why would we go out for bid a day after a payment was made?" he asked.

Well put.

ADDENDUM

The Providence Journal got itself updated and ran a more complete article yesterday on Mayor Menard's retirement and questions that are arising out of her administration. These are not limited to the no-bid motorcycles.

Also, the City Council has started an internal investigation to determine, among other things, if city employees were being made to do work they should not be doing, although they would not get more specific. On Thursday, the council had planned to meet with two city employees it had subpoenaed to ask questions, but Menard hired an independent lawyer and was able to obtain a temporary restraining order in Superior Court to stop the meeting.

Here's a question. Why would it be necessary to take steps to legally prevent the City Council from asking questions of city employees?

And another: who was doing what work they shouldn't have, for whom were they doing it and who requested that they do it?

Of Two Minds on Money

Of course, it's always more pleasant to have surpluses, rather than use them, which is a question that the Newport school department is facing:

Last week, Supt. John Ambrogi proposed hiking school spending 2.12 percent next year to $38.5 million. But the budget would require the city to increase its education appropriation by 5 percent, or $1.17 million, because of declining and stagnating federal and state aid and a projected increase of 15 percent in employee and retiree health coverage.

The School Department has accumulated a surplus in recent years and Ambrogi said he planned, for the second year in a row, to use $800,000 of it to help balance the budget. But he and committee members warned then, and again last night, that using all of it to pay for operating expenses would potentially set the schools up for budget crises in the years to come. The state tax levy cap would prohibit the schools from being able to make up the large shortfall they would eventually face, they said.

I incline toward City Councilman Justin McLaughlin's response:

The school surplus, he said, was built on savings that Ambrogi described as coming from reductions in staff due to declining enrollment and less costly negotiated labor contracts.

"This is not a windfall," he said. "That money belongs to the taxpayers. ... It's money that was appropriated for operating expenses."

Being in the financial black is wonderful, but government is supposed to be a non-profit operation, and when red times come, it should dip into reserves and cut back on expenses.

My American Dream May Be Dying in Tiverton

A bout of cynicism kept me from last night's town council meeting. Here's one of the revelations that I missed (emphasis added):

Also last night, the council received a warning from its auditor that the town’s rainy day fund is too low.

Standing at about $1.2 million for the fiscal year that ended last June, the fund represents a reserve of only 4 to 5 percent of budgeted expenses, far less than the 10 to 15 percent fund balance that bonding agencies look for when they rate municipal bonds, according to Paul Dansereau.

Dansereau indicated that the town fund is likely to shrink even further before it gets and bigger, since the current budget relies on $900,000 from the surplus to offset taxes.

The town is planning to discontinue the practice of using the surplus to keep down the tax rate in the budget year beginning July 1.

Dansereau, of the accounting firm of Parmelee, Poirier, and Associates, of Warwick, also said the School Department had a $14,000 deficit in its unrestricted fund last June 30, a shortfall that must be made up.

I don't know whether the new high-tax practice was included in the former town administrator's expectation of a 12% property tax hike, but either way, it looks like the council is set to push my monthly mortgage payment past the limit that we can afford. So much for moving to Tiverton as one of the last towns in the area able to sustain a budding family's dream of homeownership.

See, when families find themselves facing tightening budgets, they cut back. They dip into reserves. When a municipal government finds itself unable to sustain its multimillion-dollar "rainy day fund" during an economic storm, it opts to discontinue the heroic practice of limiting tax inflation (which apparently happens as a matter of nature, not by explicit action by a limited group of elected officials). Thanks for holding the line, guys. I know those wealthy enough to keep their homes will appreciate the healthy bond rating.

Anybody got a house that they'd like to rent at a discount to a nice young family headed by carpenter? Willing to move out of state...

Tough Decisions for the Tiverton School Committee

Superintendent William Rearick of the Tiverton school district just announced that federal grant funding is being reduced $200,000. He's gone back through the budget and found $27,513 in reductions (e.g., $4,000 from high school textbooks). Another $77,464 can be saved by reducing a middle school Math Literacy position by 4/5.

Now begin the pleas for cuts to be found anywhere but where they look likely to be taken.

Teacher applause.

Well, look. The single largest chunk of the budget is their pay and benefits, and those are still under negotiation. In the private sector, when the company's revenue is dropping, at the very least, demands for raises, especially up to double-digits, would be entirely inappropriate.

The detriment of unionization is increasingly stark.

Changing the Tenor of Contracts

Although I missed the budget discussion, I'm glad that I stopped by the Tiverton Town Council meeting, because discussion of a particular contract for an administrative assistant turned into debate of the contract policy overall. (My money's on the likelihood that the position will remain unfilled.) Some key highlights that councilors throughout Rhode Island ought to be competing to out-do:

• Councilman Jay Edwards suggested that all contracts going forward should call for 20–25% healthcare copays.
• Councilman Brian Medeiros said that, although he understands the reasoning behind it, offering health-insurance "buy backs" might be a bad idea. He backed off a bit, suggesting lower amounts; me, I'd argue that the town should bring its healthcare benefit itself in line with private-sector offerings such that there's around a 50:50 chance that married employees will take the other plan for the reason that it's better.
• Councilman Hannibal Costa absolutely refuses to be a part of passing any contract that offers merit-related pay but that does not enumerate the expectations and benchmarks for judging success. He argued that department heads (e.g., the fire chief) are highly trained professionals who ought to be able to impress the average person; their contracts, therefore, ought to set forth guidelines for judging standard, expected achievement versus stellar keep-this-one-at-any-cost achievement.

Budget Self-Immolation

It looks like I've made it to the town council meeting just in time to miss the budget discussion, and I'm still shaking a bit from the school committee meeting. (Although, to be honest, I'm not sure what emotion is the cause.)

School Committee member Leonard Wright made one of the union's talking points by asking Superintendent Rearick's money man, Director of Administration and Finance Douglas Fiore, to calculate the amount of change in a step-10 teacher's income following one of the budget proposals, including healthcare payments. The upshot was that the average step-10 teacher would be out a little over $1,000 on the year. Wright said, essentially, that such a change would be unfair.

Here's where I almost did take (and probably should have taken) the microphone after the teachers' cheers subsided to testify as a taxpayer that I face dire financial circumstances this year. Moreover, my healthcare is pretty pitiful. A single-digit-aged child's fractured wrist cost me the better part of a week's take-home pay.

And given a probable increase in my property taxes, this year, it is possible that I will not be able to finish the year as a Tiverton resident. Forgive me if my heart doesn't bleed for an employee making plus-or-minus on $70,000 for a shortened work year.

Thankfully, committee member Michael Burk had the presence of mind to ask for the same information for a teacher going from step 9 to step 10. If I heard right, the total increase (accounting for healthcare) would be 15%. If Mr. Wright wants a contract that is fair to teachers and fair to residents, let him look at that dynamic.

It should hurt the pride of Tiverton's liberal citizens to know that some of their representatives seem willing to take from the poor to give to the relatively wealthy — at least when the former aren't union and the latter are.

ADDENDUM:

It seems to me that there is a straightforward way to address the "inequity" of which Mr. Wright complained. The three options that the administrators offered to the school committee were as follows:

1. Reduce the projected 2% salary increase for teachers to zero but reduce the co-pay on insurance from 18% to 15%.
2. Reduce the projected 2% salary increase for teachers to (1) one percent but increase the co-pay from 15% to 20%.
3. Maintain the proposed 2% salary increase and raise the co-pay from 20% to 25%.

If the numbers work out roughly the same for the district, then the difference is mainly how it is distributed among teachers. If the complaint is that teachers who no longer benefit from the guaranteed raises of the step system can actually go backwards on take-home pay because of health insurance, then the solution would be to go with option #3, because a 2% raise means more to somebody making $70,000 than somebody making less.

Of course, I'd say that the most fair system would adjust the step system (ideally by eliminating it) and increase percentages across the board. The next stage would be to eliminate group raises and judge the employees on their individual merits.

And the Budget Is...

Given my inability to attend both significant budget meetings for the Town of Tiverton, tonight, I opted to be present at the School Committee's.

For one thing, the way Tiverton's budget process is structured, the Council's passage of the budget is merely the first step, and not necessarily an important one. As I've noted, the budget passes through so many sequential hands (ending with the townspeople's) that there are plenty of steps to absorb and affect the discussion.

Additionally, the ongoing teacher contract dispute adds an element of interest to the School Committee's budget. The single largest group of direct municipal revenue recipients has been making a good deal of noise that it ought to receive even more,and there really ought to be txpayers filling the seats.

... And as I type, the contention begins. During discussion of some projects to benefit children, union president Amy Mullen pointed out that a related (and necessary) position has not been filled. Superintendent Rearick pointed out that the work-to-rule prevented the position from being filled and suggested that this meeting is not the forum for negotiating the contract. After further discussion, Rearick pointed out that a non-teacher volunteer could be sought.

The committee moved on, with shouts and accusations from the ostensible professionals in the audience.

ADDENDUM:

It's worth mentioning something that happened as I was getting situated: A local man who (as I understood) runs a field next to one of the elementary schools asked the school committee for $3,000–5,000 to help with maintenance for property of which the district makes plenty of use. After Superintendent Rearick's statement that money existed in the current budget that could be redirect to the purpose, Committeeman Burk moved to give the full $5,000.

The assembled teachers, as readers might expect, let their surprised be known. "He only asked for $3,000!" somebody yelled.

Flipping through tonight's budget handout, I notice that, even if the steps (and teachers already at step 10) receive no increase, the cost of their salaries would go up 3.5% — or $486,215, from $13,739,442 to $14,225,657. It brings to mind that old Cat Stevens lyric, something like this:

Well you picket schools, placards fill the air
If your salaries get much higher, there won't be a dime to spare
Every step increase must be for the kids
Though proficiency's straight across the grid

I know we've come a long way
Negotiating day by day
But tell me: where do the children play?

A Public Disservice

Let it be noted for the public record that it is patently unfair of the Tiverton Town Council and the Tiverton School Committee to have key budget-related meetings at the same time on Tuesday evening. Should interested citizens (few as we may be) follow the doings of those most directly able to take our tax dollars or of those who spend the greatest part of it?

Which do you, dear reader, think I should attend?

Resolved to Resolutions

Some of the numbers floating about at tonight's Tiverton Town Council meeting left me unable to suppress my guffaws.

The town pays, if I heard right, $13,000 per family healthcare plan. Indeed, according to the outgoing town administrator, Glenn Steckman, the reason he included a healthcare buyback in the contract that he put forward for an assistant to his office was to offer some level of disincentive to take the program because it's so top-notch fantastic.

As a resident of Tiverton who recently had to downgrade health insurance due to a change in employment circumstances, and who has been astounded at the additional, uncovered costs of a bottom-notch plan (with a child's hairline fracture limiting the mid-winter oil order to half-full), I have to wonder why it is that town employees should have a healthcare benefit that is so wonderful that the municipality finds it advisable to pay them not to take it. I've heard the intention of discouraging double coverage for spouses, before, but this is an admission entirely new to my ear: benefits that are so golden as to dim all others, therefore requiring (essentially) a subsidy of spouses' programs to bring them up to a parallel notch, so to speak.

What's particularly upsetting about this dynamic is that it is absolutely clear that the town council intends to increase taxes to the maximum amount allowed by law. There's no hope, here, as far as I can see, that my fixed rate mortgage won't keep going up, owing to my variable rate tax bill.

It doesn't help that the council's discussion reminded me that town employees actually work 6.5-hour days, with the standard (again, if I heard right) being that overtime is paid after that. Councilor Brian Medeiros suggest that, in the future, the policy should be changed to require 40 hours of work before the salary increases by half, and I hope that he puts forward a resolution to make that official policy.

Councilor Don Bollin expressed some reservations about the provision in the fire chief's just-approved three-year contract for 5% raises with up to 5% in potential merit pay, which has apparently been pretty standard among department heads, heretofore. According to Bollin, these are "numbers we used in the past when we weren't under the pressure of caps." Council President Louise Durfee assured the audience that she, for one, won't be shy about approaching department heads, if finances require, to ask their cooperation in accepting, say, 4.2% as merit raises.

Ms. Durfee, as it happens, was also the lone vote against Medeiros's resolution to discourage the introduction or increase of any bridge tolls in the surrounding area. Her reasoning was that, given the state's financial difficulties, nothing should be taken off the table.

So I suggest that all future employment contracts be explicitly put on the table, via a town council resolution. Something of the following flavor:

Whereas some hard-working residents of Tiverton face the very real prospect of losing their houses this year, and whereas the various governments of Rhode Island can no longer afford to constitute the single most generous employer in the state, be it resolved that all future employment contracts with the Town of Tiverton will seek to provide salaries, benefits, and schedules more in line with those enjoyed by workers in the private sector.

I was never privy to the discussions, of course, but my understanding was that the high tech market research company with which I used to be an editor would attempt to project the upcoming year's revenue, expenses, and so on and distribute raises based on the expected growth. The contract-only approach in Rhode Island — whether those contracts are individually or collectively bargained — are a bit like a defined-benefit retirement program in that they are promised regardless of future ability to pay. As Mr. Bollin noticed, problems loom if public employees are contracted to receive raises at a greater percentage than the town is allowed to apply to taxes.

Let's Not Forget the Larger Problem

Tiverton resident Jay Lambert makes a good point in a letter in the latest edition of the Sakonnet Times:

According to Mr. Medeiros, the lack of a contract with the teachers "is actually the result of the union refusing to accept the (financial) challenges we all face." This seems to be the view of several members on the Town Council.

Stated bluntly, the teachers shouldn't get a raise because of the town's financial mess. I think we can all fairly assume that the town's financial mess certainly will not affect the salary of Mr. Medeiros, or anyone else on the Town Council. So much for challenges we all face.

By coincidence, at the Dec. 17 meeting, the town administrator presented a town-side proposal budget that represents a 13.5 percent increase from last year. And we haven't even heard about the school-side budget. Doesn't Mr. Medeiros' argument really beg some questions? How did we get into this financial mess? Why are town officials talking to themselves about skyrocketing tax increases for the indefinite future? Why don't we have a broadened tax base? Why don't we have more commercial and industrial properties instead of the boarded-up buildings, empty storefronts and "for sale" signs on Main Road? At present, we can't even get a grocery store to move into our town. Most importantly, what are our elected officials doing to get us out of this mess?

I'd suggest that it is not, actually, fair of Mr. Lambert to assume that the council members are not affected by the town's problems. It's a part-time council, don't forget, and I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that it comes with a pay check.

But that slight adjustment has no effect on the larger point: Restraining the teachers' union has to be one component of the solution to budget problems. Municipal leaders can't expect standing symbolically firm against it to suffice.

Admittedly, I multitask at the Town Council meetings, so I periodically miss a word or two, but I've yet to hear the word "relief" spoken with respect to local taxpayers, although I have heard it stated as simple fact that lower property values, and the subsequently lower property tax revenue, require tax rates to be raised.

Townspeople contribute to the local atmosphere, too, of course, and we've all got an obligation to figure out ways to make our town as safe a haven as it will be possible to find during Rhode Island's coming Dark Era. I've faith in at least some of the councilors to listen.

When Town Executives Are Let Go

An editorial in yesterday's Newport Daily News makes an excellent point with reference to recent departures of town administrators:

... the lack of information about why the (Middletown and Tiverton) administrators are departing — whether because of poor performance, personality conflicts or political pressure — is frustrating, as is the fact that neither agreement has been made public, even though both involve a severance payment.

That involves public money, and that means taxpayers have a right to know how much administrators are being paid, in effect, to take an extended vacation while they hunt for their next job.

Of course, if the town administrator were an elected official — you know, a mayor — there would be less he-said/she-said about his or her reasons for leaving. If Tiverton's Glenn Steckman were a mayor, rather than a hired manager, he wouldn't be making cryptic remarks like this on his way out the door:

He said the town needs to do considerable work including improvements to its worn out infrastructure but the town is limited by a lack of funds to get these things done and by soaring property taxes. "The debt keeps getting bigger and bigger and there's no end in sight," he said. "These are tough times and things are going to get a lot worse."

He'd be making political hay over the reasons that it's true.

Out and In in Tiverton

My observation of Tiverton government began too recently — and I'm insufficiently inside — to really get the significance of the move, but Town Administrator Glenn Steckman offered, and the town council accepted, his resignation tonight. Apparently the "arising rift" in town government noted in recent Providence Journal coverage was more of an arisen rift.

Being a fan of rifts, though, I'd suggest that now is the perfect time for the Charter Review Commission to consider placing the possibility of creating a position of elected mayor before the voters. That way the lead executive of the municipality wouldn't work for the town council, but with it and sometimes, one would hope, against it.

Other town council news is likely of minimal interest to readers in the rest of the state, but I would very much like to know if a bizarre moment from tonight's meeting is at all common at this level of government: After several neighbors of the Boathouse restaurant spoke in strong opposition to the possibility of indoor live music at the establishment (more, I got the impression, of the during-dinner ambient sort), and after several town council members spoke as if in agreement with the residents, Councilman Jay Edwards made, Councilwoman Joanne Arruda seconded, and the council overwhelmingly passed a motion to permit the entertainment license. So disjointed was the moment that I thought I'd misheard until other members of the audience whispered their own surprise to each other.

I almost wonder whether some of the council members mistook the motion actually made for its opposite. Or did they intend to grant the license, but with the restaurant's representative in total understanding that he'd best keep the new feature tightly in hand? Or perhaps some of my fellow interested citizens and I did mishear...

ADDENDUM:

Apparently, the confusion was mine (which is always a possibility and one that I emphasized in this post). Councilman Edwards has corrected me, in the comments, that his motion was "NOT to grant the license for entertainment at the Boat House," meaning (I take it) that it was to deny the license. It would seem that either I misinterpreted the reactions of others in the room (including the manager from the restaurant), or I'm not alone in having misheard.

I apologize for my confusion... although per my usual habit, I'd like to mitigate my culpability slightly with a reminder that my mind is much occupied with the difficulty of simply sustaining a household in this state, thanks to the end result of the RI Democrats' reign. (That's written with a wink and a smile, of course.)

Cranston's Creche

Thanks to Mayor Michael Napolitano (D) who has tried to summon the Ghost of Controversy Past, the front lawn in front of Cranston City Hall will not have a manger scene or any religious decorations this year.

In December, 2003, then Mayor Steve Laffey (R) invited Cranston residents to place religious and seasonal decorations on the front lawn of Cranston City Hall. Mayor Laffey, then Treasurer Randy Rossi and the City of Cranston were sued.

The first displays to appear on the lawn included a menorah and a creche. Grace C. Osediacz, a citizen of Cranston and the plaintiff in this matter (“Plaintiff”), considered the placement of these displays on the City Hall lawn to be a demonstration of support of religion by the City and its Mayor.

In 2004, citing a 1984 ruling by the US Supreme Court, US District Judge William E. Smith ruled that both religious and seasonal decorations can be displayed on the front lawn of Cranston City Hall. In December of 2004, 2005 and 2006, Mayor Steve Laffey decorated the front lawn pursuant to Judge Smith's ruling. From the article in today's Providence Journal:

But the judge, while finding that Laffey’s display passed constitutional muster, ruled that the mayor could not pick and choose specific displays without violating the free-speech rights of the city’s residents.

The decision left Laffey with two options: open the 2004 display to any and all decorations or sponsor a city-run spectacle complete with religious items and secular holiday trinkets.

Laffey went the latter route and the controversy dissipated with time.

Until this year. First term Mayor Napolitano has eschewed religious items for the front lawn at City Hall. Instead,

On Wednesday, Mayor Michael T. Napolitano, a Democrat, will switch on 50,000 white lights on the trees and bushes surrounding City Hall.

A high school choir will croon and Santa Claus will pose for photographs with children in the foyer.

The Mayor is reported to have said that it is his prerogative to do so. Presumably it is. But if so, why did he consult with the ACLU prior to making his decision? And publicly acknowledge doing so? Was he so uncomfortable with his decision and the potential public relations fallout that he wanted someone standing next to him for affirmation and a co-share of the blame? Or did he think that his "involvement" of the ACLU, which has in the past mounted legal challenges to the presence of religious items on government property, would lead an inattentive public to believe that the matter had not been settled and that he was averting controversy by seeking their counsel?

The ACLU in turn, which apparently suffers from only partial amnesia in the area of court rulings and pubic policy, chose not to point the Mayor towards the 2004 court ruling involving his predecessor but instead commended the decision and referred to "recognizing the importance of religious neutrality by the government".

Can we only have religious neutrality with the complete absence of religion? District Judge Smith did not think so:

Nothing in Lynch or its progeny suggests even remotely that a holiday display, either sponsored by the City or allowed to be displayed on City property, must be sanitized of all religious content in order to be constitutional.

Yet this seems to be the goal of Mayor Napolitano who, in addition to placing only seasonal decorations at City Hall, has not yet corrected a statement by one of his spokespersons who (religious scholars, take note) is single-handedly attempting to redefine the meaning of Christmas in secular terms.

“I think this is definitely a little bit more of a sincere approach and more of a real approach to the true meaning of Christmas,” said Ann Marie Harty, a spokeswoman for the mayor.

A Backwards Lesson in Government Structuring

A point of extended discussion at tonight's Tiverton Charter Review Commission meeting was how citizens can be given some sort of budgetary power when 86% of the budget is untouchable by them because it is bound up in contracts. Looking at a flow chart of the budgetary process in Tiverton, commissioner Frank Marshall asked who is ultimately responsible for budgetary decisions.

After quite a bit of debate, the answer is: ultimately the voters. And how do they know whom to hold responsible?

Personally, I don't see the big mystery about giving the voters a greater say in those "untouchable" contracts: give them the electorate's power over the key negotiator. Tiverton's executive authority currently rests with a town administrator whom the town council hires. Perhaps if he were elected, the town would have a point man whose employment would more directly rely on citizens' getting the government that they desire or, alternatively, an elected watchdog in the town government.

Changing the administrator to the mayor strikes me as within the purview of a charter review commission.

Keeping the Blanket on the Parties

My suggestion to have the Charter Review Commission reconsider asking the voters whether they'd like to have partisan elections was just shot down. A commission member who wasn't here for my spiel last time, Frank "Richard" Joslin (I'm almost positive), himself a member of the town Democrat committee, spoke against me, making two points to which I would have offered rebuttal had I had opportunity:

1. It's a small town, and everybody who cares to vote (or gets involved) knows who belongs to what party.
2. His fellows on the Democrat committee are very ideologically diverse, so it serves no end for voters to know that they are all Democrats for the purpose of electing them.

Regarding the first point, I'd offer my testimony that Richard is patently wrong — and in a way that highlights the problem of the supposed non-partisan elections: When I began looking into the party affiliations of Tiverton's elected officials, I had to look for such things as political donations and old, pre-non-partisanism election results. Is this the marker of good government? That a piece of information about elected officials ought to require private-eye-style investigations? The idea that the circumscribed group that currently participates in the running of the town of Tiverton ought to have largely exclusive access to an absolutely relevant bit of data is a recipe for exclusion, apathy, and stagnation.

This bleeds into my response to the second point: Whether party affiliation should be a consideration while voting ought to be a decision that the voter makes for him or her self, not a dictation from the limited group that makes the rules. Moreover, if party affiliation means nothing, then why does Tiverton have a Democrat Committee in the first place? And why does that committee promote its members for town offices?

Clearly, whether Richard's fellow Democrats are liberal, conservative, or simply cantankerous, there is something that they have in common that causes them to gather and work together, and inasmuch as the party is a political organization, that something would seem relevant our self government. Richard may not like the idea that people might hold his party affiliation against him (one of his expressed concerns), but then perhaps he ought to question why he is involved with the party in the first place.

And frankly, given the condition of this Democrat-run state — for which condition the municipalities bear their share of blame — it is preeminently rational for voters to hold their party affiliation against them.

Governing the Empty Seats

Alright. I realize that a Charter Review Committee meeting is hardly likely to generate passions and intrigue, but the Tiverton town hall is mostly empty. The committee is currently discussing ways to market the meetings.

The truth is that even the "big" meetings of town government types — the town council and the school committee — are sparsely attended as a matter of course. Individual issues sometimes bring their own crowds, of course, and that ought to indicate something: Any contingent that made an effort to attend these meetings could have a disproportionately large effect.

Disappointingly, it seems as if the only organized group that pervades state and local governments in Rhode Island — the Democrat Party — has slipped by default into the role of conducting the meetings (so to speak). Arguably, that pervasive presence saves certain well-known special interests the effort of attending at times that their numbers aren't needed.

I should emphasize that I'm not saying that the particular members of a town government such as Tiverton's (much less its minor councils and committees) are stand-ins for special interests. However, there's a cumulative effect to imbalanced participation, as well as a sort of potential energy of political action.

I, Mindless Taxpayer

There's that learning curve again. Amidst all of the things that I've had to learn as a homeowner (not including carpentry, plumbing, electrical, and so on), it took me until today to realize an important part of my town's tax structure: In addition to my annual property tax bill for the Town of Tiverton, I pay property taxes to the North Tiverton Fire District. Part of what confused me about the bills is that the NTFD also charges me for my water usage (leading me recently to question why my water bill was so much higher than it ought to have been, because I confused the taxes for the water charge). What's worse is that the fire district taxes have nothing to do with, you know, the fire department.

According to a 2006 report on Rhode Island Fire Districts (PDF), Tiverton and Portsmouth are the only towns in the state with fire districts that provide "water supply only." Yet until this year, the North Tiverton rate was just at the average for the state, even as its per-usage water rate (PDF) is well above the average — third highest in the state.

It's also interesting to note the intramunicipality comparison. North Tiverton is the working-class side of town, but for some reason, its rates are higher all around than those of the Stone Bridge Fire District. Our taxes are $0.62 per $1,000 of property value to their $0.30, and our water costs $5.32 per 1,000 gallons to their $3.90. It may be the case that it is just extremely difficult to get water to residents of North Tiverton, in which case it might be unfair to jack up the prices for the rest of the town, but one would have to break down all town expenditures by fire district in order to see whether it's fair to break out this particular cost.

Whatever the case, both the additional tax and the cross-town differences bear further research. They also don't cool my ire about the truly terrible water pressure in my neighborhood.

Having Parties in Tiverton

Although it's not online, a letter of mine encouraging my fellow residents of Tiverton to ask the Charter Review Commission to reopen the question of partisan elections is in the current issue of The Sakonnet Times:

To the editor:

At the latest Charter Review Commission meeting, member Frank Marshall made a successful motion to strike from the commission's to-do list consideration of a ballot question that would bring party labels back to Tiverton elections. We don't need them, he asserted; everybody who gets involved in local government is there simply to work hard for and do right by the town. Even taking his assertion as a given, however, it is immaterial to the question of whether the political parties to which those well-intentioned citizens belong ought to be publicly known.

Despite the implication of arguments for nonpartisan town government, being openly affiliated is not unseemly. Exactly what it means to "do right by the town" is not a matter of clear and objectively identifiable decisions; it's a matter of subjective preference and ideology. A candidate's party affiliation will tell citizens something about what his or her approach and priorities will be.

School Committee member Leonard Wright is the Tiverton Democratic Committee Vice Chair. Is he governing less as a Democrat because the school committee is nonpartisan? Town Council President Louise Durfee has run for governor as a Democrat, a Democrat governor's director of the DEM, and contributes to Democrat candidates for higher office. In what way is she nonpartisan? Four members of the Charter Review Commission --- Cecil Leonard, Frank Joslin, Raymond Medeiros, and Stanley Zeramby --- were publicly endorsed by the Democratic Committee, which offered voters rides to voting locations, and of which they are all members. How, exactly, was their election nonpartisan?

These revelations aren't meant to imply inappropriate behavior on these folks' part, but with all of the care and concern that interested citizens will observe among elected and appointed members of the Tiverton government when it comes to observing open meetings laws, avoiding quorums for non-meeting events, and so on, this deliberate omission seems incongruous. I'll confess to the hair-trigger on my suspicions, but when people in government (politicians all, ultimately), throw a blanket over a particular appurtenance, I can't help but worry about the allowances of secrecy.

The commission meets again on Wednesday, November 28, at 7:00p.m. at the town hall, and its policy is to listen to the open-mic suggestions of the public. Whichever party it may benefit, the people of Tiverton are better served by truth in labeling than by a pleasant illusion of nonpartisanism, and all we need do is ask.

That's Tellin' 'Em

Unfortunately, Melissa Wicks's letter to the Sakonnet Times does not appear to be online, but the Tiverton resident has a point of view with which many folks outside of town government and a specific neighborhood probably sympathize:

Since the current Sakonnet River Bridge is so pristine, I can see why there is a $14 million argument over the looks of the new bridge.

Actually, it's ridiculous. Who cares what it looks like as long as we all have the convenience of driving over it, including trucks that weigh more than 22 tons. Is the fabulous paint job going to make it more structurally sound? Is not having a paint job going to make people drive around the entire state?

Doubt it. Use the $14 million on something that's worth it and stop arguing over something so bloody stupid.

For the record, the argument has nothing to do with paint. The question is whether the structural steel (all beneath the road, as I understand it) will be stainless or "weathered," which develops a consistent rust-colored patina. Ultimately, therefore, the debate might as well be over a paint job. (The only additional consideration with weathered steel is that it requires the design to collect and redirect runoff water, which can stain surfaces such as concrete if it's allowed to simply flow down.)

Party, Shmarty, Everybody Works Hard

During a brief break, some of my fellow attendees of the Tiverton Charter Review Commission meeting engaged me in discussion, with two interesting points made:

• A Republican suggested that running as such probably costs a candidate votes.
• A Planning Board member suggested that, in Tiverton (at least), party doesn't really matter, because anybody elected to office is there to work hard and do right by the town.

I don't doubt that both of these suggestions are accurate, but they strike me as beside the point. Regarding the first, it isn't necessarily a permanent state of affairs that citizens are thoughtlessly wooed to the Democrats by "R"-labeled bogeymen. With the monopartisanism of the state being such a problem, making party ostensibly irrelevant to local governance hardly helps. The people of Rhode Island have an interest in explicitly strengthening the opposition party. Two benefits of doing so (both of which may prove to be of great importance in the state's near future) are that it:

• Gives a clear alternative via which dissatisfied citizens can express that dissatisfaction
• Can create an atmosphere of constructive contention.

The point that people involved in municipal government are simply there to do right by the town was actually made subsequently by commission member Frank Marshall as part of his successful motion to strike the matter from the commission's list of items to consider. I would (and will) argue that even universally good intentions among town governmentals is immaterial to the question of whether the political parties to which they belong ought to be publicly known.

School Committee member Leonard Wright is the Democratic Committee Vice Chair (for Tiverton, I gather). Is he governing less as a Democrat because the school committee is "nonpartisan"? Town Council President Louise Durfee has run for governor as a Democrat, has been appointed to the DEM, and contributes to Democrat candidates for higher office. In what way is she nonpartisan?

Despite the apparent implication of arguments for nonpartisan town government, being openly affiliated with a particular party is not untoward. "Doing right by the town" doesn't involve clear and objectively verifiable decisions, and a candidate's party affiliation will tell citizens something about what his or her approach to making them will be.

Moreover, the civic participation of townies is not disconnected from the usual party activity just because they white-out their affiliation. Somebody at tonight's meeting suggested that nonpartisan elections mean it's up to the individual candidates to get out among the people and make their cases. But the reality is that the majority of voters (let alone the majority of citizens) barely recognize the names on the ballot, let alone the views of the folks who bear those names. To the extent that the candidates are able to get their names and messages out there, it is through the usual political methods and organs, which are steeped in partisan politics.

With all of the care and concern that elected and appointed members of the Tiverton government devote to observing open meetings laws, avoiding quorums for non-meeting events, and so on, why ought they hide their allegiances? I'll confess to the hair-trigger on my suspicions, but when people in government (politicians all, ultimately), throw a blanket over a particular appurtenance, I can't help but fear that it is actually the behavior out of sight beneath it that is untoward.

ADDENDUM:

I notice that, of the nine members of the commission, four are members of the Tiverton Democratic Town Committee. And unless I'm mistaken, Deborah Pallasch was the only commission member, of the seven there, to vote against removing the nonpartisanism question from the working document.

How Things Happen (?)

I wasn't planning to attend tonight's meeting of the Tiverton Charter Review Commission, but based on the concern about its actions expressed by the school committee last night, I thought it worth observing. Also based on that concern, I sorta expected the attendance to be greater. I'm one of nine non-commission attendees, a group including:

• Two members of the planning board
• A member of the school committee
• The school superintendent
• A member of the town council

The others here may very well be similarly involved, but I haven't gotten to the point in my own involvement to recognize them. I'm also not entirely sure what the powers of this commission are, but the absence of regular ol' citizens is disappointing.

ADDENDUM:

Well, I couldn't help but take the podium to make some points that may betray me as rogue citizen who doesn't really understand the processes and history of the issues:

• Bring back partisanism to the elections. It's a sham, anyway, and it removes the ability of citizens (most of whom are voting for strangers
• Keep financial town meetings, if only because the lack of participation is an important bit of information for citizens to know. (Heck, it got me started participating in local issues.)
• Do not lower quorum minimums, because we risk getting within the range in which special interests can achieve a quorum from among their own member and sympathizers.
• Find a way to give citizens more say in the negotiation and approval of the contracts that are taking away the purpose of a financial town meeting.

How Things Happen (?)

I wasn't planning to attend tonight's meeting of the Tiverton Charter Review Commission, but based on the concern about its actions expressed by the school committee last night, I thought it worth observing. Also based on that concern, I sorta expected the attendance to be greater. I'm one of nine non-commission attendees, a group including:

• Two members of the planning board
• A member of the school committee
• The school superintendent
• A member of the town council

The others here may very well be similarly involved, but I haven't gotten to the point in my own involvement to recognize them. I'm also not entirely sure what the powers of this commission are, but the absence of regular ol' citizens is disappointing.

ADDENDUM:

Well, I couldn't help but take the podium to make some points that may betray me as rogue citizen who doesn't really understand the processes and history of the issues:

• Bring back partisanism to the elections. It's a sham, anyway, and it removes the ability of citizens (most of whom are voting for strangers
• Keep financial town meetings, if only because the lack of participation is an important bit of information for citizens to know. (Heck, it got me started participating in local issues.)
• Do not lower quorum minimums, because we risk getting within the range in which special interests can achieve a quorum from among their own member and sympathizers.
• Find a way to give citizens more say in the negotiation and approval of the contracts that are taking away the purpose of a financial town meeting.

Re: "What Can We Do?"

At last night's Tiverton town council meeting, my man Councilor Hannibal Costa took the opportunity of a routine tax assessor request (regarding the firm that will handle the assessment) to make everybody well aware that he's not going to sit idly by while rates get jacked up — what with all those houses sitting on the market as people cash out on their Tiverton properties. In the discussion that followed, Council Vice President Donald Bollin offered the following explanation (with the wording pretty close):

If the values go down, then we have to raise the rates. There's nothing we can do.

No hint of a suggestion that if the people of the town are getting poorer (via the devaluation of their largest assets), perhaps the town ought to cut back on its expenditures. Yet somehow, governments never talk about cutting the tax rates when citizens' property is increasing in value, giving the town more money than it needs.

Re: "What Can We Do?"

At last night's Tiverton town council meeting, my man Councilor Hannibal Costa took the opportunity of a routine tax assessor request (regarding the firm that will handle the assessment) to make everybody well aware that he's not going to sit idly by while rates get jacked up — what with all those houses sitting on the market as people cash out on their Tiverton properties. In the discussion that followed, Council Vice President Donald Bollin offered the following explanation (with the wording pretty close):

If the values go down, then we have to raise the rates. There's nothing we can do.

No hint of a suggestion that if the people of the town are getting poorer (via the devaluation of their largest assets), perhaps the town ought to cut back on its expenditures. Yet somehow, governments never talk about cutting the tax rates when citizens' property is increasing in value, giving the town more money than it needs.

2,606 - 722

The Projo is reporting that Stephen Tocco has lost his seat on the Smithfield Town Council by a decisive margin.