I’ve much on my to-write list, but two items from Marcia Pobzeznik’s Newport Daily News report on last night’s Budget Committee hearing merit comment. First:
Just how far over the cap the town can go is not known, but Town Administrator James Goncalo, at the request of the Town Council, has inquired of the state how much over the cap voters legally would be allowed to go when voting on a budget during the financial town meeting.
That’s arguably incorrect. The package that Goncalo sent to the state doesn’t really request an upper boundary. It would be more accurate to say that it presents the Town Council’s and School Committee’s preferred budgets in order to see whether the state would grant a waiver for them.
Remember, there is no process to ask “how much over the cap voters legally would be allowed to go.” There’s a process for a waiver, which Goncalo and the Town Council have twisted in order to get, essentially, an uncertified waiver.
Second:
The School Committee is requesting nearly $700,000 more than the Budget Committee is recommending. Superintendent William Rearick said that if the schools receive $1 more, a school closing and cuts to music and athletic programs are a real possibility, but the School Committee could also take more egregious steps, such as taking the town to court or imposing a contract on teachers.
I know I wasn’t alone, in the room, in catching this little stunner. IN the mind of Superintendent Rearick, imposing a contract on the teachers is more egregious (I think he said, “extreme.”) than closing a brand new elementary school. If anybody has doubts about the allegiances of the people who run our schools, Mr. Rearick’s presentation last night certainly didn’t dispel them.
Me, I’m a silver-lining guy. At least the superintendent is now willing to say publicly that imposing contract terms on a union that’s (predictably) been digging in its heels to wait out the recession is an actual possibility, albeit more extreme than taking sports away from students. Baby steps.
Loading ...