Chariho School Parents’ Forum

May 8, 2007

A response to McQuade and Petit

Filed under: Chariho,RYSE — Editor @ 1:35 pm

This letter (images below) was in our packet for the April 24 meeting.  It is a response to the charges filed by board members Petit and McQuade against the Education Options Committee (EOC). 

For those of you who are not familiar with the issue – A few weeks ago, we had a bad leak at the 1967 Ashaway school (see posts here, here and here).  The EOC has always been a citizen voice regarding the schools and took pictures of the leak and notified the papers.  Following this, two board members filed charges against the EOC for not keeping minutes of their meetings (which do not seem to be required since they do not have a quorum).   I also wonder if McQuade or Petit contacted EOC and asked them for info before filing charges and apparently waisting the AG’s time (and our tax dollars).

 When taking pictures, Dot Gardner of the EOC used the roof contractor’s lift.  McQuade also notified OSHA about a citizen using the lift as it may have been a safety violation.  I have heard (but not confirmed) that this resulted in a $1000 fine for the contractor. 

If the intent of these charges was to stifle citizen involvement, it may be effective.  I know McQuade monitors this site, if he has an explanation it would be informative to post it.

On a side note, McQuade has also requested that the committee be staffed by people who want to bring the 5th and 6th graders back to the elementary school (something that a 2004 survey showed 70+% support for) and by people who do not.   I guess this is his version of affirmative action.

The letter makes several excellent points, most notably that Chariho may have violated the Chariho Act by not getting voter approval for the RYSE program.  I am sure we will hear more about this.  Click on the thumbnail to enlarge image.

untitled-scanned-01.jpg page 1

untitled-scanned-02.jpg page 2

untitled-scanned-03.jpg page 3

untitled-scanned-04.jpg page 4

Advertisements

5 Comments »

  1. This letter is a blessing! Kudos to the attorney, Ms. Botelle, for recognizing several violations of the Chariho Act and bringing it to the attention of the AG!

    Sadly, Mr. Petit, a Hopkinton representative on the school committee, has seeming abandoned Hopkinton residents and has cast his lot with the school administration and defending the failing status quo and attempting to keep secrets from taxpayers.

    I am especially incensed by the implementation of the RYSE program and the thinly disguised attempt to bypass the Chariho Act and not get voter approval. At a recent Town Council meeting, Ms. Ure (or maybe Ms. Gardiner?) directly confronted Mr. Ricci on this issue and he practically grinned as he blamed the RYSE decisions on the previous superintendent. I understand the Mr. Ricci was an administrator at the time, so I would be surprised if he was not involved in the implementation of RYSE in violation of the Chariho Act. In any case, he is in charge now, and he has done nothing to bring the program in compliance with the Act. In fact, he proposes we build a permanent structure for the RYSE program without mentioning that the program has never been approved by taxpayers in the first place.

    Obviously, I don’t know where this whole thing will go, but I’m beginning to think Mr. Petit and Mr. McQuaide did us a favor with their attempt to silence Ms. Ure and Ms. Gardiner. It is one thing to have a few of us here bemoaning all the shennanigans at Chariho, but now, because of political games, the AG has been made aware of the Chariho Act violations. Time will tell if that government body is above local politics and is willing to enforce the law.

    Comment by Curious Resident — May 8, 2007 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

  2. […] Question – what if we sign the contract but then determine that RYSE was indeed created by a violation of the Chariho Act? (for details, see this letter)  […]

    Pingback by What if? « Chariho School Parents’ Forum — May 10, 2007 @ 8:25 pm | Reply

  3. […] note] now that we are providing diabetes treatments, would that be considered an “extension of the scope of the function” of Chariho?  But I […]

    Pingback by "No Bid" contract awarded for RYSE « Chariho School Parents’ Forum — May 23, 2007 @ 1:40 am | Reply

  4. […] In 2003 the board approved the development of the RYSE School (note – there is some debate as to whether the development of this program without voter approval was a violation of the C…).   […]

    Pingback by Analysis - RYSE « Chariho School Parents’ Forum — May 24, 2007 @ 2:05 am | Reply

  5. […] the Chariho solicitor, John Earle, gave his opinion on the creation of RYSE and the Chariho Act (read this letter for details).  In short- it is Mr. Earle’s opinion that since the school is required to provide […]

    Pingback by Chariho solicitor supports legality of RYSE « Chariho School Parents’ Forum — June 25, 2007 @ 5:23 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: