Chariho School Parents’ Forum

October 21, 2007

RYSE legal – but is it logical?

Filed under: bond,RYSE — Editor @ 9:52 am

The Westerly Sun published the opinion from Hopkinton Town Council solicitor Patricia Buckley that RYSE services are legal.

I was quoted but a published letter to the editor provides more details.

I need to acknowledge that I was wrong. On April 20th, 2007, Mary Botelle wrote a very intelligent and thorough letter to Attorney General Lynch suggesting that the development of the RYSE School was a violation of the Chariho Act. I supported the assertion and posted her letter on my website (  

Research provided by Patricia Buckley, Hopkinton Town Council solicitor, has convinced me that Mrs. Botelle and I are wrong. As a matter of fact, services currently provided by RYSE are not only legal but they are also only the tip of the iceberg. But that doesn’t mean we have to do it. 

RYSE (Reaching Youth through Support and Education) is a school within a school located at the Richmond Chariho campus. Originally designed to service special needs students from throughout the state, now it includes students who have been removed from the regular classrooms because of weapons, drugs or other policy violations. 

When a student has difficulty in school, an evaluation is performed to identify what could be done to alleviate impediments to the child’s success. Once these issues are determined to be necessary for education, the school has legal authority to use its budget to provide appropriate services. 

If the school determines a child needs anger management therapy, they provide it. Substance abuse counseling, they cover that too. A myriad of services are now provided at Charhio, even diabetes treatments and home-based therapy services.

These property-tax-funded activities are not only provided to students but they can also be applied to the parents.  When a parent has a substance abuse problem, the school can provide therapy. If parenting or marriage counseling is deemed necessary, the schools supply that too. Charhio has even spent money from its budget to find an unemployed parent a job. All of this, and more, is legal because it is deemed necessary for the child’s education. 

Districts that don’t have a RYSE-type program pass the responsibility to the State or parents (who purchase the appropriate insurance or pay for the services directly). Non-profits, churches and community organizations are also a source of support. Most of those options allow the parent to choose services and allows the public to be selective in its philanthropy – the school does not. 

It’s unclear if RYSE provides better or worse services compared to the private market and its unclear if it operates at a cost saving. I’m opposed to RYSE simply because I don’t believe in monopolies or charity at gunpoint. That’s one of the three reasons that I’m voting “no” on the Charhio bond.



  1. RYSE’s existence as a legal program has been put to bed as far as I’m concerned. As they say, you can’t fight City Hall, but the legality of the program has always been a periphial issue. Even on this website, if you follow the discussion, objections to RYSE have been primarily based on the cost, results and implementation, not legality.

    As Mr. Felkner has consistently pointed out to us, we are funding services above and beyond every other community in Rhode Island and likely the United States. RYSE has acted as an employment agency, a substance abuse clinic, a medical clinic and who knows what else. These services have been made available not just to children, but to adults as well.

    Legal or not, RYSE consumes resources which could be spent elsewhere with better results for children. School Committee member Mr. Petit has said straight out that the community shouldn’t have a voice in determining whether RYSE is something we want.

    By the way, The Rag article states that the RYSE temporary building are leased at a cost of about $220,000 per year. It was my understanding from the Building Committee propaganda flyer that the buildings are leased for around $296,000? What am I missing?

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 21, 2007 @ 11:12 am | Reply

  2. $220k – $296k details, details.

    If temporary buildings were such a concern, why do we have 5 temporary buildings in Hopkinton but have an empty building (the 1904 school house) that costs us $1 per year?

    Sounds like bad management to me. Or perhaps I just don’t understand their motivation,

    Comment by Bill Felkner — October 21, 2007 @ 11:34 am | Reply

  3. Are you saying, “What’s $76,000 between friends?” I’m just too picky sometimes!

    Hey, maybe the buildings are $220,000 per year when you’re trying to get a budget passed, but $296,000 when your using them to get a bond passed? They could be the chameleon buildings…they change to whatever cost suits the administration’s needs at the time? Are chameleons fuzzy?

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 21, 2007 @ 12:16 pm | Reply

  4. I am aware of “temporary” trailers in Ashaway and in Hope Valley Elementary schools. $219,000 is supposed to be the costs of the RYSE classrooms. The additional $77,000 would be for other temporary buildings – perhaps there are some at the middle school? Obviously it can’t be the ones at the elementary schools. If the bond doesn’t pass I do hope they lease to buy – $219,000 will be a wonderful addition to the maintenance portion of the budget.

    Comment by Barbara Capalbo — October 21, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  5. They might be the middle school temporary buildings. Just a guess.

    Comment by Lois Buck — October 21, 2007 @ 3:34 pm | Reply

  6. Yes, the propaganda flyer does list the cost of leasing the RYSE buildings at $219,000 per year. The flyer says the Middle School has 3 modular classrooms which would be replaced and this likely explains the discrepancy.

    What the flyer doesn’t tell us is that permanent structures result in permanent maintenance, permanent space, and permanent costs. With declining enrollment, and programs of questionable value, why would we want to permanently commit limited resources?

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 21, 2007 @ 5:01 pm | Reply

  7. The track is another problem in the bond. It needs to be fixed but can be fixed using the maintenance budget. The track will not last 20 years and was added to the bond to get parents interested in sports to vote for it. Under no circumstances will the track or any other sport area last for the 20 years of any bond. We will be replacing it again and still paying for the first one. Parents are not stupid and should be able to see through this without even trying.

    A bond should only be for things that last for the length of the bond. Water, fuel, buildings, infrastructure. That’s it.

    Comment by Barbara Capalbo — October 22, 2007 @ 7:50 am | Reply

  8. Good Point!

    Comment by Lois Buck — October 22, 2007 @ 9:25 am | Reply

  9. “Parents are not stupid” is still up in the air. Apparently the Building Committee thinks they’re stupid or they wouldn’t have bothered trying to trick parents and voters with the track and various other carrots contained in the bond.

    There are two trains of thought on the best way to inject more money into Chariho via the bond. One is to offer very specific bonds where the money is designated to very narrow areas and voters pretty much are voting yes or no for a very few things. The other approach is to jam as much stuff into the bond as possible to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Sports for this one – RYSE for that one – Middle School for them.

    Obviously, the latter strategy is the one taken by the administration. We’ll have to wait and see how stupid we all are on November 6th.

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 22, 2007 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

  10. Actually I don’t think parents or people in general are stupid. But I do believe they are overwhelmed with full time work, full time children, sports, homework, church, etc. It’s hard to keep up with any particular topic – and some issues, like the bond language – is very complex with complex ramifications. Not easy to see until you are up to your eyeballs in crabs.

    Charlestown is so wrapped in their council issues that they will truly be blind-sided by the bond. I love the precedent it sets. It’s perfect for Hopkinton and Richmond, just less so for Charlestown.

    RYSE needs to improve flexibility to allow parents choices for their own special needs children, the track is a ridiculous addition, and, like most of the work in the Middle School auditorium, can be addressed with maintenance monies. The engineering firm can’t find the main well and when it does, the libary is re-designed and moved a substantial distance re-arranging the parking lots and the vehicle entrances and exits in the process; the fuel tanks need to be moved ‘somewhere’ – no one knows where yet – and I would surmise that costs are predicated on how far it can be moved and the costs of that move.

    This is ludicrous. Like an old comedy routine. ‘Who’s on first?”

    Westerly was right refusing the second bond. It had no reality and I’d be ticked too if the landscaping was addressed before advanced science labs and then the School Board cuts languages from the high school too – in the 21st Century! Where our children must become international to function in business, law, medicine, retail, machinery, etc.

    Our students won’t have a shot – and I believe in public education. Because whenever you remove a child to private education of any nature, you remove a caring and interested parent. Parents are crucial to a good school system. If they don’t want or don’t understand the value of education (large problem in the inner cities) you can not expect students to value learning. Teachers can only teach so far – they can’t imbed a micro-chip of understanding in their students.

    So it goes.

    Comment by BarbaraC — October 22, 2007 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  11. I believe in public funding of education, but not in public schools per se. If parents are given the resources to pick the schools of their choice, then only the best schools will survive and even the children with disengaged parents will benefit.

    As it stands now, most of us are stuck with monopolistic public schools. Only the elite can afford alternatives. Since this is the way it is, we have even a greater need for accountability. At Chariho oversight is almost nonexistent at Chariho. The administration knows this and acts accordingly. Our children suffer the consequences.

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 22, 2007 @ 4:47 pm | Reply

  12. Sad, sad, sad. That is the state of the RYSE program. We provide EVERYTHING possible to a small group of kids…(why not when the program is run by a for-profit with NO oversight), and we neglect the “middle of the road” student, the majority. They have no value, but a RYSE family will get whatever is available, with any budgetary concern. The letter in the Westerly Sun noted that are RYSE students needed an “equal education” and were not getting it. ARe the writers saying that the state programs are not sufficent to meet the legal requirement for education? OR do we just want to pander to a provider of services without regard to ANY budget (consider generic vs. brand name drugs. we buy generic, they are cheaper, and work the same, but the taxpayers in CHARIHO will pay for a “Gold Standard” for RYSE students). The best, the most expensive, services with the attendent fees are provided, and why not? The more we spend, the more they make! Looks like we just laid the golden egg for THAT for profit comapnay, and they are laughing all the way to the bank!

    Comment by Georgies Mom — October 24, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  13. Repeat after me, “For the children…for the children…for the children”.

    We can never spend enough to compensate special needs children for the problems life has dealt them. This is the sad truth. We are not God. RYSE is not heaven…but is treated thusly.

    Foolish people believe in equal outcomes. Logical people believe in equitable treatment. Right now, RYSE students and their families are treated far better than the majority of students and families. How is this equal or equitable? It is not.

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 24, 2007 @ 3:43 pm | Reply

  14. Actually Tom Buck and I just want the numbers. I’ll even believe that RYSE is better if you give me the numbers – give me the mandates and the break-downs to prove year by year we are spending less for more service. Give us the financial data so that we can ask questions. All we get is ‘we save hundreds of thousands’ – OK – give me the data.

    Right now the $2,876,000 RYSE building from the 99 million bond is now at $3,920,000 — that’s 1.1 million more in less than one year for the identical building, identical footprint, identical program. Why? What happened? The $2,876,000 was listed as ‘escalated 2007’ cost in the 99 million bond. Last I checked, this is 2007. 1.1 MILLION MORE FOR THE SAME BUILDING.

    I think this is truly some form of miscommunication that I cannot fathom.

    Comment by Barbara Capalbo — October 24, 2007 @ 10:31 pm | Reply


    $26 million school bond is right on target
    After some hemming and hawing, we have decided to come out in favor of Campus 2010 – the upcoming $26 million school bond and here’s why:

    First, one walk around the Chariho campus and it is clear the high school (where the bulk of the money is going) needs work. The bond would add 15,000 square feet including seven classrooms to the high school at a cost of $15.4 million.

    There are many compelling arguments for the work – leaky roof, lack of space, needed code updates – fire and ADA, a dangerous breezeway and a maintenance shed/oil storage area in the courtyard near the school well. Chariho students also can’t have home track meets due to the condition of the track – though this is a minor expense at $400,000 relative to the whole bond.

    Secondly, the RYSE trailers need to be replaced – pure and simple. They are currently leased at $219,000 year. The bond would create a 12,000 square foot RYSE building for $3.9 million. We know there are many disagreements about RYSE but the fact is the majority of the students in the program are high school students and they are all Chariho residents. They could be educated elsewhere at far greater expense.

    The three middle school trailers need to be replaced as well. The middle school project calls for a 4,050 square foot addition as well as renovations to the auditorium, fire alarms, and heating/ventilation for $2.9 million.

    The building committee said the middle school will be the last component of the project, so that if Hopkinton moves fifth and sixth graders back to town – the addition can be reconsidered as it won’t be

    The most compelling reason of all to support the bond is financial. The money is cheaper to borrow now – before construction costs go up, while Chariho can lock in a favorable interest rate, and while the state is willing to reimburse 60% for renovation expenses, and 56% for new construction expenses. We are told those numbers may change for the worse over time.

    Another part of the financial picture is this: by eliminating the portable classrooms, the District will save $296,552 annually. That’s very close to one town’s annual cost should the bond pass.

    Now we know there are concerns about the elementary schools and their condition. According to Superintendent Barry Ricci, he estimates if the bond passes $1 million per year can be designated for improvements at the elementary schools. He said $1.2 million of the operating budget was spent on elementary schools this year.

    We also know there are concerns about the bond affecting future withdrawals from the Chariho School system – if a town wants to pull out all or some of their elementary school grades and educate them through the town – any debt will have to be re-paid. Also, the school committee has to approve any changes in grade configuration.

    That’s reality. The thing is, without a crystal ball, no one can forecast if a town will be able to or want to partially withdraw from the district.

    We know people don’t want to limit their options but we are dealing with today. And today the Chariho campus needs work and more space. That’s a reality and the RYSE school isn’t going anywhere. It’s here to stay.

    Yes, ideally the bond could have been divided into separate components and voted on separately but that’s not the case. The good news is the bond is divided into thirds – shared equally between the three towns.

    Though the three-way split does nothing for the unequal tax impact. With bond passage and the one-third split, taxpayers will see their taxes rise .12 per thousand in Charlestown, .32 in Hopkinton, and .39 in Richmond.

    The only thing that can solve that inequity is tax equalization and granting the school district taxing authority. That is another issue, for another day and I am told not even on the radar screen.
    In our opinion, Chariho 2010 is right on target. Vote yes on Nov. 6.

    Comment by RYSEISLEGAL — October 24, 2007 @ 10:58 pm | Reply

  16. I guess if a media outlet supports the bond, we should all fall in line?

    Since newspapers rarely oppose government spending, and taxpayers quite often do, I’m optimistic that voters will see the Times endorsement as just another reason to vote no. Our local media shows little journalistic credibility and simply parrots the Building Committees talking points. No real scrutiny is provided.

    The Times agrees the High School needs another 15,000 square feet of space, yet doesn’t tell us why. Declining enrollment…fewer grades then the original High School, but still more space? Sorry, I’m not buying. Especially at $15,400,000. The 1904 building has over 15,000 feet of space waiting to be renovated for a lot less than $15,400,000. If Chariho needed space, they could get it a lot cheaper. Chariho wants more space…I want more space…but neither one of us can afford it.

    The Times tells us the RYSE buildings need to be replaced “-pure and simple”. Why? If the building are in bad shape, lease new ones. We can continue to pay around $200,000 for leased buidling, or we can permanently saddle ourselves with $3,900,000 worth of facility which are here to stay with all the associated maintenance costs. Pure and simple, if RYSE is here to stay, they should continue to function as is…we need that money to stay in our pockets.

    The Times also repeats the line that RYSE is saving us money, but like every other supporter of RYSE, they provide no evidence, no numbers, to back up their assertion. Like the rest of us they have no clue if RYSE saves money or not. Sounds nice to say it though.

    The Times states that the three portable building Middle School building also need replacement. Like the RYSE building, they say the words, but don’t tell us why. Do they know why? Shouldn’t they tell us why? Or is saying they need replacing considered journalism these days? How about the “renovations” of the fire alarms and heating/ventilation? What does it mean to renovate these items? Why do they need renovations?

    The Times believes the propaganda that the Middle School will be the last component of the project…the Middle School addition can be “reconsidered”. Does reconsidered mean we’ll get our money back? Is there anything in writing to this effect or are we to trust the School Committee to give us our money back? I think the Times should give be a subscription for three years, and then I’ll pay them. I wonder if they’d trust me? I doubt it.

    The Times next does its Jeanne Dixon impersonation and see into the future. Money is cheaper to borrow now. Apparently they do not have any financial journalist worth a lick because even I know that interests rate fluctuate and building costs do the same. There’s no way to know with certainty that this is the best time to borrow or build. As Mr. Felkner has said, buying something because it is on sale is a lousy way to manage a budget. The Times was “told those numbers may change for the worse”. Who told you they’d change for the worse? Not me. I can’t see into the future.

    I could go on analyzing The Chariho Times endorsement, but why bother? It’s pretty much the same as the Building Committee’s propaganda flyer. Long on rhetoric and short on details and facts. At least the Times pays for their own paper and ink when they write their nonsense. Plus they make us pay to read it instead of shoving their propaganda into our mailboxes.

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 24, 2007 @ 11:43 pm | Reply

  17. If they ever come through with numbers for RYSE, be careful with your analysis. I suspect they like to water down the per pupil cost by counting all RYSE/special needs students and then comparing the cost to what we used to pay per student for the children who were sent outside the school.

    The true measurement of cost efficiency is to know what our total special needs costs were prior to RYSE and what our costs our now. Anything less is not worth your time.

    The School Committee and the administration realize that they can’t scam us if we are given the accurate numbers. I suspect this is why we never see the numbers. I can’t think of any other reason to be so secretive, can you?

    If you can get a budget for the years prior to RYSE implementation and post it here, I’d be happy to compare the expenses for psychological, medical, clinical, etc. before RYSE and with RYSE. I would think even the cost of sending children out of district would be available, so it should be a fairly easy comparison.

    I also don’t want to see you and Mr. Buck get so caught up in the economics that we forget the fact that RYSE severely limits the options of families with special needs children. Prior to RYSE families had a variety of choices which they could review to determine what they felt was best for their child(ren). Now these families are forced into the RYSE program. Can we put a price tag on the government taking over the parental role? I wouldn’t sell my child to the government for all the money in the world.

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 24, 2007 @ 11:53 pm | Reply

  18. I believe that Mr. Buck mentioned at the school board meeting that 3.9 million (approx 4 million) for the RYSE building divides into 200,000 per year for 20 years. We somehow have saved 219,000 per year by spending 200,000 per year + interest. I also believe that the 219,000 was for 60 months — that’s if not up soon, then very soon. And we wouldn’t spend the 200,000 at all.

    The high school needs work. That’s it. 18 million + interest (probably another 10 million+). There is only $942,000 in the capital portion of the operating budget 2007-2008, unless Mr. Ricci has found money somewhere else to spend 1.2 million. Where anyone finds an additional million before the budget process even begins is fascinating. The maintenance shed and the oil tank have been there for decades as well and probably won’t die tomorrow.

    The Chariho Act revision committee will be reinstated, and work will begin again – discussed at the most recent school board meeting – perhaps you missed it? If we have waited this long, we can wait another year or so. It may save Hopkinton and Richmond millions per year. Worth the risk? I would think so.

    Are you from Charlestown?

    Comment by Barbara Capalbo — October 24, 2007 @ 11:54 pm | Reply

  19. Read into the lines of the flyer. Some important details seem to be left out.

    Are we or aren’t we? That is the question:

    So, we are not really saving 219,000 dollars a year? What is left on the lease of the RYSE buildings is 6 months? Depending on its appearance on campus, we are almost done with the lease. If that is true, then the statement we are saving 219,000 dollars a year is misleading. Or very calculated because they can still say that for the next 6 months. Smart….

    Proven cost effectiveness?

    No, not yet. Nothing has been proven. Where are all the other reports. Initial costs to start the program, where is this report? Where are the years prior to 05-06. No P & L statements that I see. Little bits that prove nothing. Where is the 06-07 report? I wonder what a private accountant would say if they saw what we’ve been given. As far as the expenses and revenues of RYSE, we have only seen the 2005-06 numbers. The 07-08 numbers are their best guess numbers. To me, everything is purely subjective. The 05-06 numbers are in this blog I believe under RYSE paperwork, and they don’t even include any transportation numbers. They also appear to be budgetary and not actuals. The program may be saving money, or it may be costing us more money, I don’t know. Not enough data. Again the numbers appear subjective. In April, the HTC asked for this. There was time to prepare the information.

    Needed expansions?:

    No, they are not needed. It simply just doesn’t make sense to rush into all these expansions because they told us we need them. Also, if our goal is to move our 5th/6th grades back, why expand. The middle school is built for 1200 students. It would only house 900. And we know the High School can house 1200 students; we were there. It could be configured to hold 900. So, do we really need another 15,000 square feet of space in the high school.

    RYSE trailers almost paid for?:

    Could be. And if the RYSE trailers are almost paid for, where is the savings there? So basically with a little patience, we will have paid off the leased buildings and that line item will no longer be on the budget. That’s 296,000 dollars a year that could be moved to the elementary schools.

    Things just don’t add up. Seems the flyer didn’t mention that little tid-bit. Purposely, I would presume.

    Again, too many unanswered questions.

    State cap impact, is there one?:

    No. Any bond we should vote in is above any state cap imposed on cities and towns. I believe the district knows this, and this is their way to get their maintenance issues in and still look good come budget time. So, they won’t need to make cuts anywhere else. Just try to pass a bond everytime you want to go beyond any cap. Takes the pressure off them to make cuts. Pretty smart.

    Vote NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Lois Buck — October 25, 2007 @ 6:03 am | Reply

  20. The information given to voters is murky at best. HOW MUCH does it cost for our “special education” students? THEN, how much does it cost for RYSE students? My best guess is that all these students are now provided services under the sme GOLDEN WEB of deceit and profit! I expect to see the following:
    1. Constantly escalating costs for special education students
    2. Constantly escalating costs for RYSE students
    3. Continually escalating amounts of services provided to both groups, above what is mandated BY LAW
    4. Rising numbers of students enrolled in these programs, which will increase costs overall, while cost per student continues to rise. What the heck, someone else is paying, and there is no oversite, no quality assurance, just a botomless pit of money, so GO FOR IT!!!

    Remember, social security is the NEW WELFARE! If you can get your child declared “disabled”, you are on the social wagon! 200+ days of school (mandated), medicare, and social security! Most parents PRAY to have a normal, healthy child. Some will look for every advantage, and we will provide that advantage for those! After all, we now have the judge, jury and treament center to assure sucess! I once saw a mother pursue (literally) a “handicaped” designation for her child, so that the additional services for that child would allow her more free time! She won! I have no problem treating and providing education for those who really need the help, but I fear we are now on the wagon of “lets find the children who MIGHT need handicapped services”, and seek them out. Been there, seen it.

    Comment by Georgies Mom — October 25, 2007 @ 8:18 am | Reply

  21. Awhile back I read that the original intent was to lease-to-own the RYSE buildings, but the administration feared renting to own would be considered “permanent” and RYSE would be subjected to a vote. Chariho then went with a straight lease without the own option. I could be wrong, but don’t have time to research it now.

    Georgies Mom’s comments are right on track as there is a point where some parents could look at the amazing benefits offered to RYSE families and think it is the deal for them. Don’t believe it? Recently in NYC it was found that a large number of affluent, upper Westside families had enrolled their children in “special needs” schools with a price tag of tens of thousands of dollars. The government was paying to send children from wealthy families to elite schools. For every child from poverty, there are nine children from money going to some of these schools.

    So on one side we have school administrators, teachers, aides, etc. making their living off RYSE, and on the other, we have families reaping free social benefits far exceeding what everyone else has in the private sector. A recipe for corruption…a recipe for malfeasance…show us the numbers…all of them.

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 25, 2007 @ 9:57 am | Reply

  22. Correct – the lease for RYSE will be up in 2009. Tom Buck called today for that information. It’s why it is so crucial to build now. So after 60 months at approximately 18,000 a month – at a total cost of $1,040,000+ over 5 years we still don’t own the portable classrooms. Who negotiated this? The school committee? or the administration?

    So, instead of 219,000 a year rental, we can, for 200,000+ a year (plus interest) for 20 years finally own a new RYSE building. Which, after 20 years will have to be totally re-built. We are so lucky.

    Comment by Barbara Capalbo — October 25, 2007 @ 10:00 pm | Reply

  23. Chariho went with a lease, rather than a lease to own because we would have had to get voter approval for anything that would result in ownership. Guess they didn’t have much hope for getting it passed then – I wonder if they feel better about it now?

    Comment by Bill Felkner — October 25, 2007 @ 11:28 pm | Reply

  24. Now that they have dozens of people on the RYSE payroll and can count on their public support, plus the families that are getting free services from RYSE, they’ve strengthened their hand and probably feel like they have a legitimate shot at getting RYSE permanently enshrined at Chariho. They’ve basically bought and paid for a hundred or more RYSE advocates with our money. Pretty slick, huh?

    Even the Chariho Times editorializes that RYSE isn’t going anyplace. Who can blame the administration for their confidence? So far they’ve scammed the tri-town community quite successfully. Other then a few of us here, nobody seems concerned that RYSE has shown no results…good or bad, nor have they provided detailed accounting of the purported cost advantages. They tell us nothing and still get support. They are very good at this game.

    The bond vote will be a test of Hopkinton’s awareness. Lots of shennanigans with the bond…from propaganda flyers payed for with our money; to shrimp and steak dinners; to the formation of a political action committee; they’ve pulled out all the stops. We’ll have to see if they’ve fooled enough people in Hopkinton or if the jig is up? I have my fingers crossed, but I’ve got a bad feeling about this vote. I hope I’m wrong.

    Comment by Curious Resident — October 26, 2007 @ 12:37 am | Reply

  25. Well, you know the old saying that All that is legal may not be moral.

    Comment by Georgies Mom — October 27, 2007 @ 7:57 am | 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: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: