Chariho School Parents’ Forum

June 5, 2008

House approves bond for referendum

Filed under: bond — Editor @ 6:30 pm

The House approved the bond for a referendum vote, as reported by the Providence Journal

The legislation can be found here.  Noticeably absent is any mention of a set reimbursement amount.  It will be interesting to see if Chariho tries to sell it on the claim that “we must do it now to get the state reimbursement” – which the legislation makes clear, is no guarantee.

Also noticeably absent is any mention that we are spending over $12,000 per student and we can’t manage to keep our buildings maintained.  So, if the bond is passed, it will simply be another band-aid on the problem given the Committee more time to procrastinate before doing anything about runaway labor costs (due to excessive contract give-aways). 

Finally, note that there were no “no” votes in the General Assembly.  Lots of non-votes (absentee) but not a one legislator had the courage to vote against it.  Is it any wonder we are nearing a half billion in debt.  Perhaps we should remember this come November.



  1. I don’t get it. If there is no guarantee for state aid, why are they rushing to get a do-over, I mean re-vote? Wasn’t the argument in favor of a do-over, I mean a re-vote, that this was our last chance at the 56% state aid? So if the 56% state aid “guarantee” (as if anyone believes that guarantee) is no longer there, what exactly is the argument in favor of the do-over?

    Oh I know, the Chariho machine didn’t get it’s way the first time, so they get to try again. And if the bond, or should I say bonds, don’t pass the second time, they can just try again. Sounds reasonable, or not!

    Comment by Idontgetit — June 5, 2008 @ 8:57 pm | Reply

  2. Not one legislator had the courage to support Hopkinton? Not even our own representative. The state is running hundreds of millions in the red and our idiotic legislators approve a spending proposal which has been rejected once by the voters. Par for the course…Rhode Islanders get what they deserve.

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 6, 2008 @ 9:35 am | Reply

  3. More Chariho fuzzy math:

    The manner in which Rhode Island schools calculate graduation rates was changed recently. With the changes the graduation rates in Rhode Island have dropped significantly. Out of the Washington County High Schools Chariho had the largest drop in graduation rates going from 93% to 81%. Must be the constructivist math again?

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 6, 2008 @ 9:50 am | Reply

  4. Hi!
    Statistically my concern understanding these facts does ” dropouts” include those who may become home schooled, tutored privately, or transfer to another high school or other type school? I assume it does?

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — June 6, 2008 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  5. The article said the new calculation accounts for students who “disappear”. Apparently disappearing was acceptable under the old calculation. Regardless, it is noteworthy that Chariho has far and away the most students disappearing before graduating. At nearly a 20% dissapearance rate a ninth grade class of 250 children turns into a graduating class of 200. I wonder if these disappearing students are counted as part of our student enrollment?

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 6, 2008 @ 10:26 am | Reply

  6. Don’t worry, I am sure Mr Ricci will state that these figures are “not correct”, and we should depend on him to state the REAL figures on graduation, which will be much higher.

    Note that any “disappearing rate or number” are unexplained, so that would NOT count students who change schools, are home schooled, etc, as records of those changes would be kept. Either that, or there are aliens in the area who are coming on UFOs to scoop up those kids, erasing their records, and not alerting the office that they are “absent”…they are just gone!

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — June 6, 2008 @ 11:05 am | Reply

  7. As I try and research ‘THE DISTRICT’ one finds history repeating itself. Not distant history (depending on your view of distant).

    The case in point is 1995 when their were cuts to state aid by the Sundlun Administration and what a devastating effect it had on the Town of Hopkinton. A further case in point when you read the article below by Dave Husband, Sun Staff Editor, Tuesday March 7, 1995 on page 8 shows a reduction in aid to Hopkinton of minus 13%, Richmond minus 15% and the people of Charlestown minus 31%.

    Article entitled Solicitor paints costly picutre of a ‘poor’ town.

    Hopkinton-Hopkinton is one of the “poorer” towns in the state, but when it comes to staid aid to education, it’s getting one of the most expensive cuts.

    Such information was compiled by Town Solicitor Thomas Liguori in recent weeks in his ongoing attempt to convince state legislators and officials that the drastic reduction in state school aid to the town over the past two years in unwarranted.

    According to Ligouri’s figures, then-Governor Sundlun proposed in April 1994 Hopkinton receive $5.16 million in educational aid for the 1994-95 fiscal year-a 7.5 percent over the previous year.

    Meanwhile the average increase, state-wide, was 13.5 percent.

    However, the final budget approved by the legislature, after the town had used the initial figure to set its tax rate, contianed only $4.38 million in state aid-forcing Hopkinton to borrow $775,000 to cover the difference.

    Through a continuing reduction in the regionalization bonus, and a redistribution of aid based on the free school lunch program, the state now wants to further reduce the town’s state school aid by $299,703 next year, accordingly to proposed figures.

    This, Ligouri told taxpayers at Monday night’s Town Council meeting in Ashaway, flies in the face of the fact that Hopkinton is one of the least able of the state’s 39 cities and towns to be able to afford such a drastic cut in school aid.

    “There is a perceptible defect in the current scheme,” said Liguori. “They rob from the poor and give to the rich.”

    To support this he noted that:

    *Hopkinton is one of the “poorest” towns in the state, based on per capital income, medial family income, and equalized tax rates.

    *Hopkinton ranks 34 lowest of the 39 cities and towns in per capita income; 26th lowest in median family income, and is in the top 25% in equalized tax rates.

    *Since fiscal year 1992, Hopkinton has had a $1 million loss is state educational aid over the past two years, despite an overall 23 percent increase in state aid to all towns.

    *Of the nine cities and towns experiencing aid cuts in fiscal year 1994, seven are among a group with the 10 lowest equalized tax rates-with Hopkinton and Richmond being the exceptions.

    *Of the nine receiving aid cuts, six are in the top one-third in both per capita and median family income-with Hopkinton, richmond and Charlestown being the exceptions.

    *A total of 21 communities with higher per capita income, and 16 communities with higher median family incomes than Hopkinton’s received state educational aid increases.

    Of the 25 communites with the highest equalized tax rate (Hopkinton is fifth), all received aid increases, averaging 23.2 percent, except Hopkinton which got its aid cut 13 percent, and Richmond lost 15%.

    Of the 27 communities with the lowest per capita income (Hopkinton is sixth), all were given state aid increases averaging 16.5 percent, except Hopkinton (minus 13 percent), Richmond (minus 15 percent) and Charlestown (minus 31).

    If the state aid cut remains as proposed, the town could face as much a 46 percent hike in its tax rate,according to the Board of Finance preliminary figures.

    In his summation, contained in a prepared state presented to the council, Liguori said “whatever accepted measure of determining the wealth of a community and its citizens as a basis of comparison, (these figures confirm) a serious flaw in the manner in which education aid was distributed in fiscal year 1995 and as is proposed for fiscal year 1996.”

    Credits to Dave Husband, Sun Staff Editor and THE SUN. Tuesday March 7, 1995 page 6.

    Bloggers note. I think its later noted that Hopkinton’s property tax rate after Council cuts/adjustments to the towns budget was reduced to a 23% property tax hike instead of 46%. When I find it I will try and make note.

    This article doesn’t reflect on the current topic but should be noted as reduction of state aid or a flat line of state aid and how we deal with finances as a regional district and possibly whey Hopkinton is broke and votes NO on BONDS for a very distinct reason. Anti education, hardly. Broke absolutely.

    Comment by James Hirst — June 6, 2008 @ 1:39 pm | Reply

  8. With Mr. Scott Hirst running around looking for candidates for political office, Mr. James Hirst would be an excellent choice for School Committee member. They could use someone with the ability to get to the bottom of things.

    Comment by Curious Resident — June 6, 2008 @ 2:24 pm | Reply

  9. Hi!
    My brother is ineligible to run as his job restricts partisan poltical activity at least to a great degree but he can vote in a party primary and attend a rally. He would have to give up his job to run. I don’t know all the rules. He certainly could serve on an appointed board.
    The Hopkinton Reublican Town Committee Sunday night at 7:00 P.M., at Hopkinton Police Station. This is a VERY IMPORTANT meeting.
    Candidates filing is June 23,24, and 25, no later than 4:00 P.M., last day. If interested contact Ken Mott, party Chair or myself Vice Chair at 401-377-4643 or immediately. Telephone should be used to get ahold of me the quickest.

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — June 9, 2008 @ 11:52 am | Reply

  10. SBH-
    so it is a VERY IMPORTANT meeting?

    Comment by what? — June 10, 2008 @ 8:44 am | Reply

  11. Hi!
    June in even years are important as party committees make endorsements for public and party offices. Endorsements need to be filed later this month,.

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — June 10, 2008 @ 5:24 pm | Reply

  12. glad youre on top of it…..r u having a big campaign announcement ceremony?

    Comment by what? — June 10, 2008 @ 6:39 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 )

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: