My Name is Paul H Cosentino. I started this Blog in 2011 because of what I believe to be wrongdoings in town government. This Blog is to keep the citizens of Templeton informed. It is also for the citizens of Templeton to post their comments and concerns.
Paul working for you.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Selectmens meeting
There is a Selectmen's meeting tonight the agenda is here
Also a reminder that Rep. Denise Andrews will be at 690 Patriots Rd today 5:00pm to 6:00pm
There is a combined meeting of the school committee and select board on Wednesday July 31 at 6:30 PM middle school auditorium. Tonight's meeting agenda was already posted Thursday prior to Friday STM.
K. I am kinda new to all of this. I do want to thank both Pauly & Gansett Greatness for getting myself & many others interested & involved in local issues.
Just to clarify - This meeting was called by the school committee not the boards of selectmen. If you wish to talk about a certified school budget, you may be able to do it under item B. Public Forum
There is no agenda item to discuss the budget certified or not.
Also, can someone clarify; Since state law says we were supposed to have an up/down vote on "certified" budget, &due to confusion & lack of knowledge by those in charge that never happened, doesnt the law state that the certified amount is approved by default?
In the end it was indeed a straight up or down vote. The only difference was the amount had been changed due to final state aide figures. There was no override as part of the final vote.
The school committee are the ones that requested the changed amount. Their representative attended the meeting and requested the change. They got the vote on their requested amount.
"CERTIFIED". The requested amount, the override amount, this n that. In all the confusion, we never voted down the "certified' amount FIRST. Ergo, per DESE(sp?), doesnt it default to approved. If no vote is taken, its automatically approved. Maybe Im wrong & someone smarter than me can look into the DESE(sp?) laws?
Gee, the real problem is that the new amount was not" Certified", by the School Committee. They did not post a meeting, and there was no meeting!! OOPS !!, I have a problem with the fact a member of the School Committee did stand up and tell the tax payers in the room something that was not true. Gee, isn't that illegal ?? The games have got to stop ! The name calling has to stop ! It is time for the people, who support the school, to start by using real numbers. It looks better, for the "school supporters", to keep saying the town has not paid enough, when in reality it has paid more than it's share. What Mr. Spring has explained, is the truth, even when you do not like it. Bev.
Huh? Why so combative Bev? The amount was certified at the last School Board mtg. Were u there? Also, how can it be said that Templeton has paid "more than its fair share", when its share is the entire thing? You cant pay more than all. Oh, one more thing. They are town supporters, not school suppoters. The school just happens to be the biggest thing in town.
Unfortunately for the Town, Mr. Spring does not determine what the school budget will be come Dec. 1...DESE does. Therefore, his opinion, while informative, is not controlling on the issue.
Huff n Puff, You know, you are right but, let me explain something to you. I was sitting in the Selectmen's office with other people from town yesterday, speaking with Denise Andrews when Mr. Gary brings up his figures of how much the town has paid for their part of the school budget. He keeps saying the town has not paid their share. The figures he is using are not correct, and Mr. Spring has explained this to him. Instead of correcting what is on the G.G. web site, and giving people the correct information, he continues using the same figures, over and over. Now I do not think he is a stupid man, and I get it that his figures make his argument look good, but I am sick of it, and I think he owes it to the people to be honest. We are willing to educate anyone but they need to listen. If they pick and choose what they want to hear, that does not help the situation. Bob Green does not know how lucky the town is to have Mr. Spring and the rest of the people on the Advisory Board. If they had been that position, the town would not be in the mess we are in now. Our last Advisory Board, was run by a college kid, had no idea what they were doing, and helped give away the farm. Huff n Puff, I am glad you are interested in what is going on in town. I hope this explanation helps, .Bev.
What Mr. Gary has stated is that the Town pays MORE than its minimum contribution, but LESS than the figure recommended by DESE. That is an accurate statement. Again, if you don't like what DESE publishes, contact them. Their number is (781) 338-3000.
What seem a little ridiculous is for someone to make their budget year after year on a target goal, not a requirement. It would seem prudent to count on the money that you know you will get and not a number that someone else hopes you will get. It is sort of like if your boss says that they hope to give you a raise because you deserve it, but it will happen only if sales are up. Then you go and spend your savings account assuming that you will get that raise and then the company does poorly and you do not get the raise and now your savings account is empty. The School has been trying to reach that target goal set by the DESE by spending their savings account. Rather than keeping to what they know they will get out of the town and then anything on top of that is gravy. Instead the savings account is now empty and the demand to fully fund that target goal is at hand and to be debated at this joint Town meeting. I could be wrong, but this is the way it looks to me.
Part of the confusion going on has to do with the new number we heard and voted on at the latest STM. The figure of $561,371 was presented on town floor by Rae-Ann Trifilo, a member of the NRSD School Committee. Did she do this as a representing member of the committee or as an individual? If this new number was approved and or recertified by the committee, when did they meet prior to the STM to do this in an open meeting? Was presenting this new number an attempt to play the system and make whatever happened afterwards not valid because this number had not been recertified by the school committee? I certainly hope that everyone was on the up and up and did not fool voters into getting the original budget number by default. The school committee or Rae-Ann Trifilo in particular certainly would want to be honest with this process, right? We will find out in time as all votes at Town meetings are reviewed by the State.
There has also been confusion going around about the “Target Local Share” and the “State minimum requirement”. The target local share is a goal that the DESE would like to see committed by the Town. It is not a requirement. The minimum requirement is just that, a requirement. The required number is lower than the target local share number. The Town has already approved a number that is in between the two. Templeton gives more than the minimum requirement and less than the target local share.
Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up Phil. I believe everyone, includeing the school committe was acting in good faith & tryin everything possible to save us $. I just wonder if whoever is ultimately in charge forgot to vote on certified budget first. & if that even matters?
How could they "forget to vote"? Did that matter?? Well it does if you want to believe what they tell you, and in the end it does not matter because the vote was no. If the vote had been yes, the Attorney General would have thrown it out because there was no way of funding the article, included with the motion, To do things right, the School Committee should have deducted the money they received from the government, from their budget request. Did they think people would not notice? Were they going to put it under their pillow? I think we have about beat this horse to death, so we need to go to this meeting and get this matter taken care of. I hope everyone comes out of this process a lot more educated. Bev..
FYI - Bob, The issues over at L&W are not over by a long shot. Time and some audits will tell what the next steps are to be taken. Let's not forget that the AG investigation approved by town voters does have something to do with the L&W.
The district has received additional sources of funding from the state. By law, this additional source of funding and its effect on the certified budget must be announced to the people approving the budget (in this case, Town Meeting) the next time that group (Town Meeting) meets, which was Friday.
So in summary, I believe she read the reduced figure as "certified" because of the mandatory reduction in budget based on the newly given funds from the state.
The entire school committee votes to certify the school budget.
The last notification of a certified vote by the school committee was delivered to the BOS office on June 18th. ...voted on June 12th ...thirteen days BEFORE the second override vote on June 25th which failed at the ballot box.
To my knowledge, there has not been a vote taken by the Narrangansett Regional School Committee to re-certify a lower amount.
I think that is one of the topics that will be discussed tomorrow night...but I could be wrong.
I think votes to certify school budgets DO matter. Pretty sure the vote taken by the School Committee when they certified the budget on June 12th triggered the need for STM within 45 days. Pretty sure that is the reason why the Templeton BOS held an emergency meeting on July 1st... to set the date for a STM within the 45 day time limit or the school department would receive the $691,000 by default....and the Town would need to make draconian cuts to public safety.
So I'm fairly confident that certified votes by the school committee regarding the budget matter.
The more I think about it, perhaps there was no need to recertify the School budget to reflect the new number given at STM by Ms. Trifilo. As I see it, the budget amount that was certified did not change. What changed was the funding sources of the budget. Since the School received figures from the State as to what the actual commitment the State was giving, the School committee must have lowered the amount to the Town to reflect the real numbers that they would have from the State. Whether they had or needed to have an open meeting to make that change, I do not know. But it seems to make sense that this is why the numbers changed from $691,000 to $531,000.
I understand that John Columbus gave up his seat as the Chair of the School Committee. That alone tells me a story. He has been on that committee a long time. He is smart enough to know what kind of a financial mess this town is in. Could it be, the people on this committee would not listen to reason? He quit for a reason! Bev.
Not tryin to start a fight here, but arent we in this mess because of the same people thar held the same positions for years? Maybe we need all new people. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over n over & expecting a different result
I don't think that axiom is always true. For example, I don't think the GG people are insane. The NRSD is attempting a 4th vote on their budget after having it rejected 3 times in 4 months. Talk about doing the same thing over and over...
That's not insane, because all they need is those who can't afford or don't wish to pay additional taxes to give up. Three no votes and one yes vote means they get their money. To heck with town finances, they get the money for the school.
They were against the money from CPA to secure ETE school. A building which the town owns, but is not for school purposes any longer. People were shouting out about spending that money on the schools. Well that's not the purpose of CPA money. Mostly, it is used to acquire land (taken off the tax rolls) and to restore private homes and tombs. Templeton had a chance to save a town asset with that money, but from what I saw (at town meeting and on this blog), GG was not in support of ETE. I guess the strategy there is to let it decay?
There are many important and pressing issues in Templeton. But for now, we focus mostly on the school budget.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not insane. With the rules and laws as they are, it's sometimes a smart strategy. All you need is one "Yes" vote, and all the "No" votes become moot. It doesn't matter what the majority want, only which has the most motivated voters.
I agree with your analysis of the ET Elementary issue. That is why I believe it is so important for town officials on both sides of the budget argument to be as unabrasive as possible. When people feel that they have been talked down to or treated disrespectfully, it colors their views on issues, regardless of how irrational that coloring is (and that isn't directed at you, or any other town official in particular, just a general statement of the reality of human nature).
I can't speak for all parents, but as I see it, no one was looking to CPA funds to repair the roof when our children were suffering in a damp, moldy school. Why should I approve the expense now? I understand that this is a new BOS and a new Advisory Board, but as stated above, past grievances can be determinative for many on a broad spectrum of issues.
You can only use CPA money for certain things. Repairing a school roof, in a school that is still occupied by students is not one of the reasons you can access CPC funds.
Repairs to school roofs and other expenditures have been brought before the voters and shot down...on more than one occasion.
I made a motion to access some stabilization money to explore performance contracting for all town buildings including our elementary schools. I feel we need a another option for school repairs in case the elementary school project is not approved by the voters. In this political climate, I don't foresee a favorable vote for an elementary school in Templeton.
Factor in the lowering of Templeton's bond rating, the seemingly intractable position of the school committee for their operational budget the successful passage of a vote to fund a new elementary school has become more difficult.
Julie - Maybe the statement made by "Bob" (why should I approve the expense now?) will come back to haunt him when the NRSD comes to voters for a debt exclusion. If the GG crowd plays ball like that, can it be a big surprise if others play the same game?
Why is there nothing about the school on the agenda?
ReplyDeleteGood question.
ReplyDeleteThere is a combined meeting of the school committee and select board on Wednesday July 31 at 6:30 PM middle school auditorium. Tonight's meeting agenda was already posted Thursday prior to Friday STM.
ReplyDeleteunderstood. But how we are gonna fund the certified budget can still be discussed right?
DeleteFeel free to come and bring it up huff and puff. After all it is our town our meetings and our elected selectman.
ReplyDeleteK. I am kinda new to all of this. I do want to thank both Pauly & Gansett Greatness for getting myself & many others interested & involved in local issues.
DeleteJust to clarify -
DeleteThis meeting was called by the school committee not the boards of selectmen. If you wish to talk about a certified school budget, you may be able to do it under item B. Public Forum
There is no agenda item to discuss the budget certified or not.
Also, can someone clarify; Since state law says we were supposed to have an up/down vote on "certified" budget, &due to confusion & lack of knowledge by those in charge that never happened, doesnt the law state that the certified amount is approved by default?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn the end it was indeed a straight up or down vote. The only difference was the amount had been changed due to final state aide figures. There was no override as part of the final vote.
DeleteBut the law clearly states it must ne the certified amount. THAT was never done.
DeleteThe school committee are the ones that requested the changed amount. Their representative attended the meeting and requested the change. They got the vote on their requested amount.
Delete"CERTIFIED". The requested amount, the override amount, this n that. In all the confusion, we never voted down the "certified' amount FIRST. Ergo, per DESE(sp?), doesnt it default to approved. If no vote is taken, its automatically approved. Maybe Im wrong & someone smarter than me can look into the DESE(sp?) laws?
DeleteGee, the real problem is that the new amount was not" Certified", by the School Committee. They did not post a meeting, and there was no meeting!! OOPS !!, I have a problem with the fact a member of the School Committee did stand up and tell the tax payers in the room something that was not true. Gee, isn't that illegal ?? The games have got to stop ! The name calling has to stop ! It is time for the people, who support the school, to start by using real numbers. It looks better, for the "school supporters", to keep saying the town has not paid enough, when in reality it has paid more than it's share. What Mr. Spring has explained, is the truth, even when you do not like it. Bev.
DeleteHuh? Why so combative Bev? The amount was certified at the last School Board mtg. Were u there?
DeleteAlso, how can it be said that Templeton has paid "more than its fair share", when its share is the entire thing? You cant pay more than all.
Oh, one more thing. They are town supporters, not school suppoters. The school just happens to be the biggest thing in town.
As I said, Im new to this, so please instead of attacking, embrace & educate us.
DeleteUnfortunately for the Town, Mr. Spring does not determine what the school budget will be come Dec. 1...DESE does. Therefore, his opinion, while informative, is not controlling on the issue.
DeleteHuff n Puff, You know, you are right but, let me explain something to you. I was sitting in the Selectmen's office with other people from town yesterday, speaking with Denise Andrews when Mr. Gary brings up his figures of how much the town has paid for their part of the school budget. He keeps saying the town has not paid their share. The figures he is using are not correct, and Mr. Spring has explained this to him. Instead of correcting what is on the G.G. web site, and giving people the correct information, he continues using the same figures, over and over. Now I do not think he is a stupid man, and I get it that his figures make his argument look good, but I am sick of it, and I think he owes it to the people to be honest. We are willing to educate anyone but they need to listen. If they pick and choose what they want to hear, that does not help the situation. Bob Green does not know how lucky the town is to have Mr. Spring and the rest of the people on the Advisory Board. If they had been that position, the town would not be in the mess we are in now. Our last Advisory Board, was run by a college kid, had no idea what they were doing, and helped give away the farm. Huff n Puff, I am glad you are interested in what is going on in town. I hope this explanation helps, .Bev.
DeleteI believe Mr Gary is just useing DESE numbers. Someone mentioned that in another thread.
DeleteMR. GARY'S FIGURES ARE DIRECTLY FROM THE DESE WEBSITE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, BASH DESE NOT MR. GARY!
DeleteWhat Mr. Gary has stated is that the Town pays MORE than its minimum contribution, but LESS than the figure recommended by DESE. That is an accurate statement. Again, if you don't like what DESE publishes, contact them. Their number is (781) 338-3000.
DeleteWhat seem a little ridiculous is for someone to make their budget year after year on a target goal, not a requirement. It would seem prudent to count on the money that you know you will get and not a number that someone else hopes you will get. It is sort of like if your boss says that they hope to give you a raise because you deserve it, but it will happen only if sales are up. Then you go and spend your savings account assuming that you will get that raise and then the company does poorly and you do not get the raise and now your savings account is empty. The School has been trying to reach that target goal set by the DESE by spending their savings account. Rather than keeping to what they know they will get out of the town and then anything on top of that is gravy. Instead the savings account is now empty and the demand to fully fund that target goal is at hand and to be debated at this joint Town meeting. I could be wrong, but this is the way it looks to me.
DeletePart of the confusion going on has to do with the new number we heard and voted on at the latest STM. The figure of $561,371 was presented on town floor by Rae-Ann Trifilo, a member of the NRSD School Committee. Did she do this as a representing member of the committee or as an individual? If this new number was approved and or recertified by the committee, when did they meet prior to the STM to do this in an open meeting? Was presenting this new number an attempt to play the system and make whatever happened afterwards not valid because this number had not been recertified by the school committee? I certainly hope that everyone was on the up and up and did not fool voters into getting the original budget number by default. The school committee or Rae-Ann Trifilo in particular certainly would want to be honest with this process, right? We will find out in time as all votes at Town meetings are reviewed by the State.
ReplyDeleteThere has also been confusion going around about the “Target Local Share” and the “State minimum requirement”. The target local share is a goal that the DESE would like to see committed by the Town. It is not a requirement. The minimum requirement is just that, a requirement. The required number is lower than the target local share number. The Town has already approved a number that is in between the two. Templeton gives more than the minimum requirement and less than the target local share.
Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up Phil. I believe everyone, includeing the school committe was acting in good faith & tryin everything possible to save us $. I just wonder if whoever is ultimately in charge forgot to vote on certified budget first. & if that even matters?
DeleteHow could they "forget to vote"? Did that matter?? Well it does if you want to believe what they tell you, and in the end it does not matter because the vote was no. If the vote had been yes, the Attorney General would have thrown it out because there was no way of funding the article, included with the motion, To do things right, the School Committee should have deducted the money they received from the government, from their budget request. Did they think people would not notice? Were they going to put it under their pillow? I think we have about beat this horse to death, so we need to go to this meeting and get this matter taken care of. I hope everyone comes out of this process a lot more educated. Bev..
DeleteThnx Bev. I believe thats everyones goal. Includeing GG.
DeleteJust like we have beaten the L&W horse to death. I believe the voters have spoken on that issue as well.
DeleteFYI - Bob, The issues over at L&W are not over by a long shot. Time and some audits will tell what the next steps are to be taken. Let's not forget that the AG investigation approved by town voters does have something to do with the L&W.
DeleteThe district has received additional sources of funding from the state. By law, this additional source of funding and its effect on the certified budget must be announced to the people approving the budget (in this case, Town Meeting) the next time that group (Town Meeting) meets, which was Friday.
DeleteSo in summary, I believe she read the reduced figure as "certified" because of the mandatory reduction in budget based on the newly given funds from the state.
I could be wrong though.
The entire school committee votes to certify the school budget.
ReplyDeleteThe last notification of a certified vote by the school committee was delivered to the BOS office on June 18th. ...voted on June 12th ...thirteen days BEFORE the second override vote on June 25th which failed at the ballot box.
To my knowledge, there has not been a vote taken by the Narrangansett Regional School Committee to re-certify a lower amount.
I think that is one of the topics that will be discussed tomorrow night...but I could be wrong.
I think votes to certify school budgets DO matter. Pretty sure the vote taken by the School Committee when they certified the budget on June 12th triggered the need for STM within 45 days. Pretty sure that is the reason why the Templeton BOS held an emergency meeting on July 1st... to set the date for a STM within the 45 day time limit or the school department would receive the $691,000 by default....and the Town would need to make draconian cuts to public safety.
So I'm fairly confident that certified votes by the school committee regarding the budget matter.
The more I think about it, perhaps there was no need to recertify the School budget to reflect the new number given at STM by Ms. Trifilo. As I see it, the budget amount that was certified did not change. What changed was the funding sources of the budget. Since the School received figures from the State as to what the actual commitment the State was giving, the School committee must have lowered the amount to the Town to reflect the real numbers that they would have from the State. Whether they had or needed to have an open meeting to make that change, I do not know. But it seems to make sense that this is why the numbers changed from $691,000 to $531,000.
ReplyDeletePhil - that makes perfect sense. Good analysis.
DeleteYour new numbers at stm were put forward by the chairman of the school committee!The new chairman!
ReplyDeleteI understand that John Columbus gave up his seat as the Chair of the School Committee. That alone tells me a story. He has been on that committee a long time. He is smart enough to know what kind of a financial mess this town is in. Could it be, the people on this committee would not listen to reason? He quit for a reason! Bev.
DeleteNot tryin to start a fight here, but arent we in this mess because of the same people thar held the same positions for years? Maybe we need all new people. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over n over & expecting a different result
DeleteI don't think that axiom is always true. For example, I don't think the GG people are insane. The NRSD is attempting a 4th vote on their budget after having it rejected 3 times in 4 months. Talk about doing the same thing over and over...
ReplyDeleteThat's not insane, because all they need is those who can't afford or don't wish to pay additional taxes to give up. Three no votes and one yes vote means they get their money. To heck with town finances, they get the money for the school.
They were against the money from CPA to secure ETE school. A building which the town owns, but is not for school purposes any longer. People were shouting out about spending that money on the schools. Well that's not the purpose of CPA money. Mostly, it is used to acquire land (taken off the tax rolls) and to restore private homes and tombs. Templeton had a chance to save a town asset with that money, but from what I saw (at town meeting and on this blog), GG was not in support of ETE. I guess the strategy there is to let it decay?
There are many important and pressing issues in Templeton. But for now, we focus mostly on the school budget.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not insane. With the rules and laws as they are, it's sometimes a smart strategy. All you need is one "Yes" vote, and all the "No" votes become moot. It doesn't matter what the majority want, only which has the most motivated voters.
I agree with your analysis of the ET Elementary issue. That is why I believe it is so important for town officials on both sides of the budget argument to be as unabrasive as possible. When people feel that they have been talked down to or treated disrespectfully, it colors their views on issues, regardless of how irrational that coloring is (and that isn't directed at you, or any other town official in particular, just a general statement of the reality of human nature).
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for all parents, but as I see it, no one was looking to CPA funds to repair the roof when our children were suffering in a damp, moldy school. Why should I approve the expense now? I understand that this is a new BOS and a new Advisory Board, but as stated above, past grievances can be determinative for many on a broad spectrum of issues.
You can only use CPA money for certain things. Repairing a school roof, in a school that is still occupied by students is not one of the reasons you can access CPC funds.
ReplyDeleteRepairs to school roofs and other expenditures have been brought before the voters and shot down...on more than one occasion.
I made a motion to access some stabilization money to explore performance contracting for all town buildings including our elementary schools. I feel we need a another option for school repairs in case the elementary school project is not approved by the voters. In this political climate, I don't foresee a favorable vote for an elementary school in Templeton.
Factor in the lowering of Templeton's bond rating, the seemingly intractable position of the school committee for their operational budget the successful passage of a vote to fund a new elementary school has become more difficult.
Julie - Maybe the statement made by "Bob" (why should I approve the expense now?) will come back to haunt him when the NRSD comes to voters for a debt exclusion. If the GG crowd plays ball like that, can it be a big surprise if others play the same game?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Both sides need to be aware of the political consequences of their actions and tone.
Delete