Chariho School Parents’ Forum

December 1, 2007

Dec 4 meeting announcement

Filed under: bond — Editor @ 10:25 pm

Pasted below is the meeting notice placed in the paper. 

There are some interesting items on the agenda.  It is unfortunate I will be unable to attend, but it doesn’t look like the school board will be voting anyway.  But the councils may be asked to vote on something.  Note #8 – “motions”

 4 a & c look interesting.  I’m not sure how people are defining “tax equalization” or “district wide tax base” etc…  To me its simple.  People in Hopkinton and Charlestown pay the same for coffee, bread and a Chevy.  But we pay drastically different amounts for education.    And I said “people” not towns.  Towns can pay equal amounts while individuals pay three times as much.   I think thats what people mean by an equalized tax.  I’ll dig up the tax rates and supply an example soon.

Tri-Town Special Council Meeting

Charlestown – Richmond – Hopkinton

Chariho Middle School Auditorium

December 4, 20077:00-10:00 pm

Working Toward Achieving Common Groundin Providing Education in the Chariho District

1. Open Meeting – Moderator, Ray Lamonte

2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

3. Council Presidents’ Introduction –Bring Councils into SessionJohn O. Craig – B. Joe Reddish – Vincent Cordone

4. Discussion of bond – today vs. tomorrow
a. 1/3 – 1/3 – 1/3 financing
b. Phase in 10 – 15 – 20 years for collective support of commoncampus
c. Equalization – what does that mean?
d. Remove middle school from bond

5. What are some options? (Open discussion)
e. 5th & 6th grades back to elementary schools
f. New buildings vs. renovations
g. Variation of bond – does it make sense?

6. What do we need to do “today”?
h. 56% & 60% reimbursement – use it or loose it?
i. What can we agree on …to start the process?

7. Q & A

8. Individual Town Council resolutions or motions

9. Adjourn

A 48-hour notice is required for persons with sensory impairmentsrequiring auxiliary aids by calling (401) 539-9000×9.

(Posted on behalf of the Chariho Regional School District Committee)

And here is the email from Superintendent Ricci that initiated this meeting.  He mentions “another vote” so the above agenda makes sense.  They want to find a way to reintroduce the bond.  Recently, I was asked what it would take for me to support a bond.  I’ll post that separately.


[UPDATE] It appears that Richmond, Charlestown and Chariho have all included “motions” on their agendas.  Hopkinton has not.  Not sure if that means they can or can’t vote – but it seems to imply they don’t plan on voting.

[UPDATE] Hypothetically speaking, Bev Kenney could make a motion on any of the items listed, even if item 8 (motions) isn’t on the Hopkinton agenda.  So if she made a motion to reissue the bond, someone would have to second the motion for a vote to proceed. 



  1. I just sent Vinnie and Bill a note asking them WHICH agenda for Hopkinton is correct for the “Tri Town” meeting on 12/4/2007. The agenda filed on the Sect’y of State website with #8 listed as “ADJOURN” by Hopkinton, or the one filed by Richmond, CHARIHO, Charleston on the Sect’y of State website and in THE SUN, as a legal advertisement noting that #8 is for “Individual Town Council Resolutions or Motions”, and #9 states “ADJOURN”.

    Seems like just another item of swift, underhanded dealing? OR another “mistake”. (Sure, believe that, and I have a bridge I can sell you)

    Just another reason for our town council to NOT go to this meeting.

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — December 1, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  2. Over on Hopkinton Speaks they suggest that perhaps each town has filed their own individual agenda? If this is true, and Hopkinton’s Town Council specifically have decided NOT to vote on any resolutions or motions at the December 4th meeting, then I give them credit for refusing to play along with Mr. Ricci’s political games.

    If the agenda for Hopkinton is a mistake and actually does include resolutions and motions, and this could include approving a resolution for a re-vote, then shame on them for even thinking about approving a re-vote under the pressure that is sure to exist at the December 4th tri-town meeting.

    If Hopkinton’s Town Council, specifically Mrs. Capalbo, Mr. Buck, and Mrs. Thompson, are in on a deceitful plan to pull the wool over Hopkinton’s eyes, I throw up my hands. I expect Mrs. Kenney to be a sneak…Mr. Cordone wouldn’t surprise me, but I’ve put my faith in the other three to protect Hopkinton.

    I pray that Hopkinton’s different agenda means the Hopkinton Town Council refuses to subvert the original vote, and insists any new bond will have to include tax equity and a reasonable plan. I hope one or all of the councilors will explain their positions to us and ensure us they will honor the views of Hopkinton’s majority as expressed with our vote on the bond.

    Comment by Curious Resident — December 1, 2007 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  3. I need some help on this is anyone knows –

    Lets say a motion is made to split the bond (without addressing the tax issue) – If Richmond and Charlestown vote yes but Hopkinton votes no, won’t the motion still pass? Or does each town have veto power – and if thats the case – and if Hopkinton does vote (because its not on their agenda) then the vote would be 2 – 0 with 1 abstention. Would it pass then?

    Comment by Bill Felkner — December 1, 2007 @ 5:41 pm | Reply

  4. I’ve implored Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Capalbo, and Mr. Buck to stay away from this meeting. As you can well confirm Mr. Felkner, there our procedural tricks which can be employed which may end up haunting Hopkinton councilor who do not wish to the subvert the bond vote.

    The one sure fire thing Hopkinton Town Council can do to avoid any tricks is to not establish a quorum at this meeting.

    From what I understand, both Mr. Buck and Mrs. Thompson plan on being there. Last I knew, Mrs. Capalbo has other commitments and won’t be there. I strongly urge Mr. Buck and Mrs. Thompson to change their minds and not go.

    I don’t know Mrs. Thompson, though I’m told she’s made of tough stuff, and I know Mr. Buck is an excellent speaker and a quick thinker, but they will be two sheep among a pack of wolves. I’m confident in my communication abilities too, and I understand the desire to be in attendance and take a stand, but in my opinion this is not the time or place. This is a trap and they are walking right into it when they don’t have to do it.

    Comment by Curious Resident — December 1, 2007 @ 6:10 pm | Reply

  5. So if Mrs. Kenney makes the motion to vote on a memorializing resolution, and Mr. Cordone seconds, then off we go? This meeting is a huge risk for Hopkinton.

    I’ve done some research, and with a 2 – 2 vote, the Chair has ultimate authority as follows:

    APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR – An incidental motion (See MOTIONS below). Any member disagreeing with the chairman’s decision may thus petition the matter to a vote of the chapter. It is in order even when another member has the floor, and often arises out of a point of order. The member arises, saving, “I appeal from the decision of the Chair.” If it is seconded, the chairman states his decision and allows limited debate. He then says, “All those in favor of the chair’s decision, say Aye,” etc. A tie vote sustains the chair.

    INCIDENTAL MOTION – Must be disposed of before action is taken on the motion out of which it arises. Example: Motion to close nominations, point of order, method of voting.

    Comment by Curious Resident — December 1, 2007 @ 9:35 pm | Reply

  6. […] And then the notice for the meeting came out and we see that reintroduction of the bond (or version of it) is on the agenda […]

    Pingback by So many issues - too little time « Chariho School Parents’ Forum — December 2, 2007 @ 1:32 am | Reply

  7. AND, while we talk of lies, chicanery, and other unscrupulous acts, please give me information on the following:

    WHO authored the agenda published for the meeting?

    WHO set up the meeting?

    WHO invited Mr. Lamont?

    Ordinarily, my expectation would be that all three town council presidents got together with Mr. Day to determine the best time and place for the meeting? Of couse these are not ordinary times. All of the aforementioned also determined the agenda? All determined that Mr. Lamont would be the best, neutral person? (That in itself is a laugh if you have been reading The Sun at all)

    OR could it be that everything was set up, put in place and orchestrated by Ricci and company?
    Inquiring minds want to know!

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — December 2, 2007 @ 8:29 am | Reply

  8. i sent barry those questions – will let you know when I get an answer

    Comment by Bill Felkner — December 2, 2007 @ 11:05 am | Reply

  9. Hi!
    If I am correct,the Town Council can add to the agenda but I do not think they should in this case.To add to the agenda as I understand it a motion has to be made to add to the agenda something not already part of it.The school committee as I understand it cannot add to the agenda.I will be e-mailing our solicitor Patricia Buckley on this after I post this.I need to check if Bill Felkner’s motion was incorrectly voted on and if it needed two thirds to be tabled.

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — December 3, 2007 @ 2:40 pm | Reply

  10. To help you along Mr. Hirst, Mr. McQuaide originally said that he would “like to move the motion”. Mr. Day then referred to it as a motion “to move the question”. I’m assuming the motion was actually “to move the previous question”. This is the motion to end discussion and there is no debate allowed, so it fits the profile of what they did.

    I didn’t find any other motions that end discussion like happened at this meeting. If I am correct, a motion to move the question requires a 2/3 majority to pass. Mr. Day lied…once again. I hope he is proud.

    Comment by Curious Resident — December 3, 2007 @ 3:52 pm | Reply

  11. Where is Mrs. Buck and Mrs. Capalbo? Leading up to tomorrow’s meeting they disappear? Something is afoot…I hope they aren’t succumbing to pressure from the Charlestown and Richmond town politicians?

    If anyone goes to tonight’s Town Council meeting it would be appreciated if you could let us know if Mr. Ricci’s meeting tomorrow is talked about? If so, does it sound like Hopkinton’s Town Council is going to throw the town under the bus?

    I still have faith in Mr. Buck and Mrs. Thompson, but silence from Mrs. Capalbo and Mrs. Buck makes me nervous. Come out, come out, wherever you are.

    Comment by Curious Resident — December 3, 2007 @ 3:58 pm | Reply

  12. My husband is explaining this to me.

    This is his recollection of the posting:

    We are having 3 individual town council meetings, Charlestown, Richmond, and Hopkinton. Each council has its own agenda. We are just having the meetings at the same place, at the same time. The council presidents will open each council’s meeting.

    Hopkinton does not have item # 8 on its agenda, Individual town council resolutions and motions. I believe item #8 on Hopkinton’s agenda is to adjourn the meeting, but I don’t have the agenda in front of me.

    Hopkinton’s agenda was legally advertised properly in the Westerly Sun. One of the other towns or Chariho, when posting their legal advertisement, decided to add the other two towns to the top of their agenda, which insinuates it is Hopkinton’s agenda also, but this is not true. Hopkinton cannot control how other towns or Chariho posts their meetings or post their legal advertisements.

    I say again, Hopkinton does not have Agenda #8, individual town council resolutions and motions, on their agenda. This does not stop a councilor from making a motion, but somebody would have to second it. If no second is heard, the motion automatically fails.

    I will not vote on anything Tuesday night.

    I will not play the semantics game with Chariho again. We did not endorse the previous bond. PERIOD. Screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me.

    The residents of Hopkinton defeated the bond, and I will not negate their right of their personal vote. When Al Gore won the majority vote in the presidential election but lost to the electoral college, did we call for another vote? No. It is what it is.

    I apologize that I don’t post more, but my wife reads this blog and since she has been asking the questions, I felt I needed to explain to my best recollection.

    Thomas E. Buck

    Comment by Lois Buck — December 3, 2007 @ 11:36 pm | Reply

  13. Thanks for explaining Mr. Buck. I still wish that Hopkinton wouldn’t field a quorum tomorrow (or actually today), but since a quorum is inevitable, I’m happy you will be there representing Hopkinton.

    I was not paying attention back then, but apparently Mr. Scott Hirst led the majority to vote to cut an operational budget a few years ago. Chariho managed to get a re-vote and restore much of the cuts. As someone pointed out then, Chariho didn’t like what the voters told them and they rigged a second vote. I would hate to see this happen to Hopkinton twice.

    Good luck tomorrow. Stay strong and proud. If you or Mrs. Buck could post here tomorrow when the meeting concludes it is much appreciated.

    Comment by Curious Resident — December 4, 2007 @ 12:34 am | Reply

  14. A taxpayer at the Town Council submitted a formal complaint regarding the posting of the Hopkinton agenda. Hopkinton has posted their agenda on the Secretary of State WEB site, but Charlestown and Richmond chose to include Hopkinton in the Agenda posted in The Westerly Sun. How does this affect the sovereignty of Hopkinton? Are we now just one of three with no ability to veto? Will this meeting turn into a huge lawsuit over votes, veto, and what is lawful? Will the “majority” rule? Will this effectively block our legal power to veto? How will this affect Hopkinton with ANY future decision making for our schools, (including the fifth and sixth graders) in the future? I have been led to understand that this meeting is a meeting of INDIVIDUAL Town Councils, and that NO MAJORITY VOTE can overturn the vote of each individual Town Council. Is this STILL true, or are we (again) being led into the lions pit?
    And what about the moderator? Who chose HIM? Is this legal, since we already have a legal path for choosing a moderator?

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — December 4, 2007 @ 12:23 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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: