If you’ve been to a heated school committee meeting during negotiation season, this was that on steroids. As it happened, we didn’t actually get to a single budgetary vote. For the more extended version, I’ll follow the official docket (PDF).

We got through the opening formalities fine, although it was clear that Moderator Mike Smith had some jitters his first time on the dais. It was also clear that many folks in the audience were newly quasifamiliar with Robert’s Rules of Order and that there was some sort of intention to throw everything the moderator did into question. The initial vote count was 1,026, with voters over-spilling into the auditorium.

The only contention with the moderator’s resolutions/procedural rules came with number 5, which essentially restates Robert’s Rules that, upon passing an amendment, the body would move to a vote on the amended motion without discussion, although we voted to add “as amended” to the language.

At that point, the Happy Gilmore heckler guy, the guy who goes to public meetings declaring our retirement communities to be a “cancer on the community,” Mike Carreiro, made a prepared motion that, should the moderator voluntarily step down, the second runner up in the vote for moderator, last year, Mike Burk would become the moderator. After an hour or so of working through that motion, objections, amendments, and so on, the movement actually passed, but with Mr. Smith stating his intention not to do any such thing.

When we reached the Town Council Resolution, which authorizes the Town Council to “transfer ownership” of various unneeded buildings for more than fair market value or give them away to “a non-profit or government entity,” TCC President Dave Nelson moved to amend the resolution to get rid of the giving away stuff. Several people noted that there would be no tax revenue should the property go to a non-profit, and the amendment and motion passed.

Resident Dana Allcock also amended the resolution to ensure that the proceeds would go to the debt on our three new elementary schools, but he withdrew the motion after copious debate and statement of the fact that the next resolution on the docket took that action.

When it came to that resolution (the first “taxpayer resolution”), Council Member Ed Roderick moved to postpone discussion indefinitely on the grounds that the matter had already been considered during discussion of the previous resolution. I argued that Allcock had withdrawn that amendment from consideration, so the only purpose to postponing the taxpayer resolution would be to prevent its receiving a vote. Then, I had to defend a subsequent motion to move the motion from a collection of folks, beginning with Town Councilor Louise Durfee, who attempted to change the “move the motion” discussion into a debate on the resolution. (It gets confusing, but essentially, their intention was to ignore my motion to stop debate.) Ultimately, my motion was moved, but the resolution failed 514 to 481.

That’s when things got hairy.

Resident Bob Martin moved that we take the agenda items out of order and “skip to page 8,” on which the school appropriation appears. Anticipating the opposition’s intention, I put forward a parliamentary inquiry suggesting that the motion was actually to put the school budget before the body, which at least brought the rules of the meeting into effect to move the Budget Committee’s presentation first.

Budget Committee Chairman Jeff Caron placed his $20,047,961 on the table. Per the rules, School Committee Chairman Jan Bergandy got the the first amendment and put forward the amounts that his committee approved this week: $25,620,772, with a presumed $4.64 million to come from the state and federal governments (although the town would be liable for every penny that other sources reduced their contribution, according to the Rhode Island Department of Education).

Mr. Martin proposed an amendment giving the schools a local contribution of $20,666,622 and then attempted to turn his amendment of the school budget into an amendment of the entire town budget. I called that out of order, and the moderator agreed. Resident Deb Pallasch appealed the decision on the grounds that moderator’s rule number 6 made a motion to move the docket in order. I argued that rule number 6 merely states that such motions require a majority vote; it does not make them in order when any other similar motion would be out of order. Otherwise, I could have made a different motion to move the entire docket right then and there and take the floor.

In much escalating confusion, we ultimately won because Martin withdrew everything but the school appropriation amendment.

Next, Dave Nelson made an amendment to give the schools the full remaining tax increase up to the cap, which added $27,500 to the Budget Committee’s number.

For the last allowable amendment, Pallasch moved $25,620,723, but didn’t know the local amount. She said it was the same as Bergandy’s, so essentially she’s assuming $1 more in aid. In other words, she just wanted to use up the last allowable amendment. However, her bumble of the presentation highlighted that the town would be on the hook for that amount (at least if you believe the Department of Education), and even some of the school supporters gasped. It results in a potential 22.3% increase in taxes.

But we proceeded with debate, and prominent Rhode Island left-winger Nick Tsiongas — husband of School Committee Member and teacher from another town Carol Herrmann — stated that, if the Budget Committee recommendation were to be approved “we’re going to” close an elementary school and so on. I’m a little fuzzy on the order of events, here, because the opposition deliberately threw them into confusion, but my recollection is that, when the debate was about to proceed Mike Burk moved the motion, and we spent the rest of the time allowed for the meeting defeating that motion so that the people of Tiverton could actually discuss such a massive expenditure.

I tell you this honestly: In all of the various strategies that we in TCC batted around, we never once considered an attempt to shut off debate on anything… let alone something of such importance. (I did extemporaneously make such a motion, earlier, but my intention was truly to move the dragging meeting along, and the matter had already been pretty well discussed in a prior action.)

At one o’clock, the moderator adjourned the meeting (until next Saturday), and both he and Mr. Caron wound up requiring the intervention of uniformed officers to deflect hostile residents. Meanwhile, I killed time while the crowd dissipated by picking up the remarkable amount of garbage that people had left in the bleachers and on the gymnasium floor and was berated by union-friendly resident (who appeared to have family under town employ) for voluntarily cleaning up a public space in my own town. (For more on that anecdote, see Anchor Rising.)

So, upon the reconvening of the meeting, next Saturday morning at 9:00 a.m. in the high school gymnasium, the present electors will take up the proposed school budgets in the following order:

• $20,979,030, with a total liability of $25,620,773, for a tax increase of up to 22.3%, to a rate of $17.46 and an average property tax bill of $5,376.
• $20,075,461, with no additional liability, for a tax increase of 4.48%, to a rate of $14.91 and an average property tax bill of $4,591.
• $20,666,622, with no additional liability, for a tax increase of 6.39%, to a rate of $15.18 and an average property tax bill of $4,675.
• $20,979,030, with a total liability of $25,620,772, for a tax increase of up to 22.3%, to a rate of $17.46 and an average property tax bill of $5,376.
• $20,047,961, with no additional liability, for a tax increase of 4.39%, to a rate of $14.90 and an average property tax bill of $$4,587

One unexpected benefit of this moving around was that I managed to catch Director of Administration and Finance Doug Fiore in the hallway to clarify something: The teacher union’s maneuver to avoid the 18% healthcare copay (over the current 12%) cost the district $120,000 this year.

8:15 p.m.

OK. They’re back, talking budget, related to a legal opinion from RIDE, today, answering some question that attorney Robinson had sent regarding how the district should calculate its maximum request and such.

According to the assistant education commissioner, federal stimulus money cannot be used to calculate the local spending increase. (As I said had to be the case if English means anything when it’s used in the law.) Consequently, the committee’s requested local contribution of $21,285,285 must be reduced to $20,979,030.

Moreover, the commissioner told the district to factor in a 3.8% reduction in state and federal aid, which means the committee’s total general revenue request will be $25,620,772, which is slightly down from the request of $25,645,096, but still higher than the Budget Committee’s recommended $25,333,181.

9:00 p.m.

Attorney Robinson presented his opinion about the RIDE document, and I took the podium to offer a bit of rebuttal. The upshot of the discussion is that it is inaccurate to say that any number appropriated by the FTM is “illegal” provided it gives at least as much as the previous year appropriation of local funds. It might be accurate to say that it would be “illegal” for the FTM to vote for a number that does not mention the expected state and federal aid. In that case, according to RIDE, the town would be responsible for any aid shortfalls.

From home:

I should note that the committee voted (with only Danielle Coulter opposed) to change its request at the FTM to the numbers, cited above, suggested by the RIDE opinion. (The committee and administrators persisted in calling it “a ruling,” but in my opinion, that’s a little misleading.)

I should also note that it came up that it would be perfectly legal for the FTM to vote to expect zero state or federal aid and appropriate accordingly. As a practical matter, that’s clearly not a reasonable expectation, and the town should stick to the Budget Committee’s recommendation, but it is good to know.

(To expand: I’m not sure what the repercussions would be for the School Committee’s budgeting were that to happen. I suspect they could delay major cuts until the money came in, but I’m not sure that nothing would get blown out in the confusion.)

Part of the budgetary debate behind the threats of drastic cuts is the relevance of “restricted aid.” The following five clips, taken with my camera, present the School Committee and Superintendent Bill Rearick’s full presentation of talking points for the benefit, mostly, of an out-of-the-ordinary videotaping by somebody other than me. An interesting couple of counterpoised points regarding “restricted aid” come in clip 4.

The clip begins with local Democrat Deb Pallasch explaining, to calls of “that’s right” from Rearick and certain committee members:

I think where the confusion comes in is with the restricted aid: We don’t show the revenue, but we don’t show the expenses, either, because when you go to the town and you look at the docket, we’re talking about the revenue we can use… Restricted aid has nothing to do with general expenses. You can’t take IDEA money and pay for a math teacher.

But at the end of the clip, Director of Administration and Finance Doug Fiore explains the following about the 2011 budget:

Right now we’re asking for $617,000 of additional funds, and we’re losing over $500,000 of IDEA ARRA funds that were a one-time boost to our revenue, this year. Those services need to be provided; those expenses aren’t going to go away no matter what we do, we still have children with IEPs. That’s going to basically eat up over half of the additional funds we’re asking for.

Ms. Pallasch kept conceding that the whole “restricted” thing is very confusing, but I’m not confused. “Restricted” means taxpayers don’t have to know about aid that freed up local money for other expenses like salaries and benefits, except when the aid decreases and the school committee wants Tiverton residents to pay for the previously restricted expenses as well as whatever the district spent the liberated dollars on. Got it? They can’t do just anything with restricted funds, but they can do anything with the funds that restricted funds allow them not to spend on restricted expenses, which were general expenses until somebody else offered to pay for them, and which become general expenses again when the additional revenue goes away. That’s why a chart of the district’s total aid — including state and federal, restricted and general — looks like this:

The dotted-line box is the amount of additional tax money that the School Committee would like to draw from the town, and it’s obvious that most of it is intended to be a general revenue replacement of restricted revenue. The question is: How did all of that targeted money get built into the budget? That’s something that’s not answered in these videos.

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.

I’ve heard rumors that there might be something interesting being said, here, tonight.

7:24 p.m.

Town Treasurer Phil DiMattia is at the witness table answering some questions from Council Member Louise Durfee. I don’t recall hearing that much from the previous town treasurer at town council meetings, but that in itself is telling. It’s interesting to watch her with Mr. DiMattia; the delight at ribbing him couldn’t be more visible on her face.

7:30 p.m.

Town Council Member Jay Lambert suggested that the council should resist the urge to micromanage and second guess the treasurer. Watching the exchanges, one might forget that the treasurer is elected directly by the residents of Tiverton, not appointed by the council.

7:33 p.m.

Mr. DiMattia suggested that Ms. Durfee should feel free to call him rather than wait for a town council meeting.

7:35 p.m.

The agenda has moved on to a “standby motion” for exceeding the tax cap at the financial town meeting. Thus far, Council President Don Bollin and Jay Lambert are questioning whether a “standby motion” is necessary. Lambert: “This standby motion is a fiction.”

7:39 p.m.

Interesting that even Louise Durfee is among the unanimous voices questioning the need for a standby motion. I’m pretty sure this was her idea.

Furthermore, the substitute for Solicitor Andrew Teitz is stating that the FTM requires a prior justification for exceeding the cap (i.e., the waiver), which is in direct conflict with Mr. Teitz’s prior suggestion.

7:43 p.m.

Budget Committee Vice Chair Rob Coulter noted that Teitz’s firm also represents Barrington and might have given different advice. The substitute isn’t familiar with the facts.

7:47 p.m.

Lambert noted that the town is now looking at more than 9% of a tax increasing according to documents that went to the state.

7:50 p.m.

Bollin restated his disagreement with the notion of having a standby motion. By the way, Council Member Cecil Leonard has a motion on the floor to disapprove the standby.

7:57 p.m.

Leonard, Lambert, and Roderick voted to disapprove the standby. Bollin and Durfee voted not to disapprove. Costa abstained. Motion to disapprove carried.

8:09 p.m.

A representative of the local Economic Development Commission gave a quick summary of what they’ll be talking about at their event tomorrow night (at the new Family Ties restaurant) featuring state Economic Development head Keith Stokes. I’d like to know why they would schedule an event on the same night as a School Committee meeting. Guess I’ll have to CC Mr. Stokes in my note to D’Souza.

8:22 p.m.

Laura Epke is now seeking guidance on how much economic feasibility should be a factor in her committee’s recommendations about what to do with various town properties.

8:36 p.m.

Town Administrator Jim Goncalo is requesting renewal of some town officers contracts with “no cost impact” until June 2011, which (Jim O’Dell asked to be clarified) means no increase in salaries or benefits, unless the town chooses to give them.

8:49 p.m.

The request was unanimously continued to the next meeting in order to make sure they get the legal stuff right.

8:58 p.m.

TCC President Dave Nelson is mentioning the proposed tax increase form that Town Administrator Goncalo changed a form to send to the state to “ask for information.” Bollin, Durfee, and Goncalo have all behaved as if it’s no big deal that the town administrator is sending official documents that are false and not noted as false or “for illustration purposes,” because it was in the context of a cover letter that explains its purpose.

I pointed out that the cover letter called the false document “the ‘Notice of Proposed Tax Rate Change.’” The Town Council had never seen that document. How can there be no outrage on the council over that?

Rob Coulter has been expanding the argument and Goncalo has promised “to find out who put that form on the Internet.” So now what? A witch hunt for the person who disclosed a secret document going to the state?

9:28 p.m.

Lambert made the excellent point that it is absolutely clear that the town council is asking for a waiver without asking for a waiver in order to avoid a 4/5 vote before the FTM.

Hannibal Costa then declared that the item wasn’t on the agenda (it was) and Bollin forthwith ended the meeting… no vote, no further opportunity to talk.

To the editor:

I write this letter not as the chairman of the Tiverton Budget Committee but rather as a concerned taxpayer. At the April 12 meeting of the Town Council, Councilor Durfee moved and the council subsequently voted to request a determination from state officials of the maximum amount by which the electors at the May 8 Financial Town Meeting (FTM) may vote to exceed the 4.5% state tax cap.

The Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (FY11) combined school and municipal requested budgets represent a 9.19% tax increase. The Budget Committee proposes a 4.39% tax increase. There has been a lot of buzz that the FY11 Budget Committee recommendation will “decimate” the town, when in fact the FY11 Budget Committee recommendation represents a 1.75% increase to the total budget compared to the amount appropriated at the FY10 FTM. The Budget Committee recommendation to the FTM voters increases total spending 1.75%, maintains town services, and is under the 4.5% state tax cap.

While many taxpayers feel that there should be no tax increase on July 1, those who support the requested budgets endorse a 9% tax increase. I submit that the Budget Committee’s recommended 4.39% increase represents a compromise which is under the state cap. The Town Council’s request to exceed the tax cap is unjustified.

Town Solicitor Teitz has also publicly stated his opinion that the voters at the FTM can vote to levy a tax of whatever amount they choose, even in excess of the 4.5% state tax cap. In short, ‘There is no tax cap in Tiverton.’ Please remember the 2008 FTM debacle which resulted in a 9% tax increase!

Let’s defeat the requested 9% tax increase. Please attend the Financial Town Meeting at 9 a.m. on Saturday, May 8, and vote to stay under the 4.5% tax cap and to support the taxpayer resolutions.

Jeff Caron

(d) Notwithstanding any provision of the general or public laws to the contrary: …

(iv) the budget adopted and presented by any school committee for the fiscal year 2011 shall not propose the appropriation of municipal funds (exclusive of state and federal aid) in excess of one hundred four and one-half percent (104.5%) of the total of municipal funds appropriated by the city or town council for school purposes for fiscal year 2010

On Tuesday night, the School Committee voted to propose that the town give it $21,285,285, which is 106.17% of the $20,047,960 that the financial town meeting appropriated out of municipal funds during the current fiscal year. To skirt the plain language of the law — “municipal funds (exclusive of state and federal aid)” — the committee is arguing that the town “appropriated” both the local and state numbers, thus implicitly promising to make up for shortfalls in state money.

As it happens, the school district did get the aid it was expecting, but the state used $293,067 of federal money as part of its total, and the people we elected to oversee the education of Tiverton’s children are claiming that such money must be kept out of this calculation. In other words, they’re insisting that students’ parents and neighbors are responsible for paying that $300,000 once again because it ultimately came from a different source.

The law is what you can get away with, I suppose, and legalese can spin just about any argument, but taking basic English as our guide, there’s simply no way to describe the School Committee’s maneuver other than: dishonest. Of course, to offer some bit of sympathy, I understand why the district might be panicking. After all, according to the federal government’s stimulus Web site Tiverton schools received an additional $1,276,521 in one-time grants, during this school year, and if the committee and administration built that into the budget, they’ve got quite a bit of money to make up.

From what I can tell from this state document, by the way, that’s apart from $296,081 that filtered from the feds through the state for Title I and special education and another $739,833 from the state for other “restricted” purposes. While those of us who labor in the private sector have been struggling, it’s been very flush times for those in the public school business, it would appear.

Still, once they’ve crossed the line from fair and reasonable discussion to tugging on any thin thread of hope that the lawyers can concoct, we’re into a very serious matter, with grave political implications at the least.

We also find it very odd that while all this criticizing and bashing is going on, no one is offering up any solutions. Also of interest is the fact that when Mr. Medeiros was asked — In a town where over 80% of the total budget is labor and benefits, how do you ever control the budget without labor concessions on all contracts, he never did answer this question, no matter how many times it was repeated.

The tax cap has become a “me, too” affair, with claiming it as an objective to stay beneath it. Unfortunately, for most of the people involved in local government it’s sort of an abstract goal; they aren’t willing to take any of the steps that would ensure that the budget does stay within bounds. Actually, we can probably combine the “steps” into just one: ceasing to give in to the union demands that have left public sector unions with higher pay than their private-sector counterparts and stratospheric benefits.

An interesting exchange of statements: Tax Assessor David Robert was trying to explain where the budget calculates motor vehicle taxes, and council member Louise Durfee noted that increasing car taxes — which occurs outside of the mandated cap on tax increases — “helps the town.” Interesting that, in her view, there’s such a distinction between “the town” and the people who may be seeing an average of $350 or more increase in annual taxes.

7:29 p.m.

Council Member Jay Lambert noted a reservation about saying to a fifth of the town who are unemployed and another fifth who are struggling, and so on, that they’re just gong to have to accept a 9% increase.

Durfee subsequently stated that “the powers that be” have determined that some of the difficulty is going to be borne by the taxpayers. Funny, I thought the town council and school committee are the “powers that be” in Tiverton.

7:35 p.m.

Budget Committee Chairman Jeff Caron has mentioned that his committee has slated for the school district and town to each see a 1.7% increase — the extra having emerged with the proposed state funding formula for schools. (It’s not going to pass, I’d wager, but we can pretend otherwise, if we like.)

7:39 p.m.

Lambert just stated that he would only “reluctantly” support an increase at the cap, and no more. “We just have to learn to live within that economic reality.” Before the meeting, he looked back at previous budgets and noticed an approximate 180% increase of the tax levy over the last ten years. He noted, too, that the state government looks to be no better off next year.

His instruction: cut the budget, and if people don’t like what’s lost, they should motivate themselves and neighbors to change the state government so that the politicians will “get off their fat asses” and do something.

7:45 p.m.

Durfee is arguing that, since the municipal side is under a 4.5% spending increase. And the school committee is shooting to come in at a 4.5% spending increase. Yet, somehow, the tax levy goes up 9+%.

8:19 p.m.

Lambert has fallen for the reasoning that it’s responsible for the council to count the spending as “under the cap.”

Unanimous vote to move forward the budget that clearly breaks the cap.

I tried to speak just to point out two things for perspective, but the council voted (unanimously) to move the question. So much for citizen participation.

The two (very quick) points I wanted to make were:

1) A statement by Laura Epke that a $100,000 increase in the budget “only” represents a nickle increase in the tax rate. Of course, the tax rate is calculated per thousand, and the increase will be much more than that nickel’s worth. The average increase in property taxes will still be $350 or more.
2) The council is satisfied that its proposed budget only increased three-point-something percent. Inflation currently stands at 2.63% year-over-year.

8:26 p.m.

Jeff Caron has snuck up to the microphone to raise the question of requesting a tax-cap waiver. My prediction: big hoopla coming up when if we can’t keep the financial town meeting’s budget below the tax cap.

And I’d like to reiterate that every single town council voted to propose a budget that will almost certainly exceed the levy cap.

• The school department believes that they were shorted in the current year. Depending on what funds must be counted in the budget for purposes of the mandated local “maintenance of effort,” it could be anywhere from a quarter million dollars to four million dollars.
• They feel positive about some sort of concession from the teachers’ union, but they don’t want to take any budgetary actions before they know.

Here’s the language in state law requiring a certain increase for school departments.

7:18 p.m.

School Committee Chairman Jan Bergandy stated that “It was always our plan to go below the cap.” Frankly, as somebody who has sat through just about every school committee meeting during this budget season, that really hasn’t been an impression that I’ve gotten.

Superintendent Bill Rearick seems optimistic that they’ll be able to wrap up mediation with the teachers’ union in time for the FTM. From what I hear, any concessions won’t be anywhere near enough to make up budget shortfalls. In other words, the impression is that they’re seeking to lock in a number before the FTM.

7:37 p.m.

Council Member Ed Roderick noted that what the School Committee is calling “the cap” really isn’t the cap, because it doesn’t take into account the town’s budget. Rearick responded that he thought debt service should be included in calculating the cap, and since the town has so much debt, thanks to school bonds, we can just go ahead and raise taxes more.

Town Council member Louise Durfee quipped, at some point that, “It would solve all our problems if we get that car tax.” More increased taxes.

Apparently, if I’m understanding correctly, the schools’ complaint is that they’re counting their “appropriation” as total money, so the town is required to make up lost state and federal money that was estimated in the “appropriation.”

I took the mic to mention that (1) the state’s language speaks to the “local funds” that must go up, (2) the financial town meeting calculated the necessary increase on a per pupil basis, and (3) the FTM explicitly stated that any extra money should return to the town. Council President Don Bollin said that the language about returning money has never been enforceable.

The, oddly, Rearick said that he concurs, leaving me at a loss as to what their complaint actually is. I’ll have to check the tape, I guess.

8:09 p.m.

Council Member Jay Lambert noted that many older residents can’t afford increases in taxes. I took the podium to note that many younger families, like mine, are seeing higher costs and lower income, as well.

I also challenged a previous statement by School Committee member Leonard Wright in which he claimed that each teacher would have to take a $10,000 cut in salary/benefits to save $1.8 million. Wright reached that argument by stating that the town needed $1.4 million, so $1.8 million would leave a little extra (for legal challenges). I made the point that he was calculating the $1.4 million off of next year’s budget, which includes something like $700,000 in increased salary/benefit costs.

He doggedly held to his number as an example, so the year of the budget didn’t matter, but it manifestly does matter, because the town wouldn’t need $10,000 from each teacher’s current salary. You’d need about half that, which is much less than many private sector incomes have fallen.

8:25 p.m.

The School Committee has departed, and Ms. Durfee noted that she “can’t live with the Budget Committee’s cuts” and suggested a likelihood that they’ll need to go for a waiver of the tax cap. In the interim, she’s suggesting that Town Administrator Jim Goncalo come up with a lower municipal budget to get a little closer to the Budget Committee and then return to the Budget Committee with the new numbers.

8:34 p.m.

The Town Council is discussing some language from Solicitor Andy Teitz by which the General Assembly would allow cities and towns to postpone budget decisions for 90 days, so that they can be made with better information.

8:40 p.m.

Teitz suggested that Town Clerk Nancy Mello send the draft legislation to every other city and town.

Leonard Wright is noting that a budget decision in August or September would present really big problems considering that the school department must notify teachers that they may not be asked back by March.

Of course, I’d add, with contracts typically ending at the end of the fiscal year (end of June, I believe), moving the FTM would allow town bodies to operate with a (theoretically) hard-stop deadline for negotiations well before they know what the taxpayers are willing to provide.

8:50 p.m.

The council is moving forward with the proposed legislation. Between discussions, Durfee brought up the possibility of increasing car taxes again.

8:59 p.m.

Council member Cecil Leonard moved to take discussion of exceeding the tax cap off the table. Only Jay Lambert voted with him.