Chariho School Parents’ Forum

January 12, 2009

Jan 13 meeting

Filed under: meeting notice — Editor @ 11:02 am

Here is the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting.   For the record, the “resignation” mentioned is their interpretation of when I was sworn onto the Town Council.


Jan 13 2009 7:00pm
Middle School Library

School Committee

6:00 PM (Executive Session) 7:00 PM (Regular Session) at Chariho Middle School Library
Note: Individuals requesting special accommodations must call (401) 364-7575 forty-eight hours prior to meeting date.
Any changes in this agenda will be posted on the school district’s website (, in the Chariho Administration Building, and in the Chariho Middle School at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the meeting. Individuals requesting special notice of the revised agenda must call (401) 364-7575 to make arrangements for same.

I. Meeting Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Silent Meditation

II. Executive Session (42-46-5(a)(8) – for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings; any students to be discussed have been so notified.

III. Closing/Sealing of Executive Session Minutes

IV. Disclosure of Executive Session Votes

V. Recognition

VI. Public Forum

VII. Business (N=New Item; P=Previously Discussed; @=May Require Action)
A. Acceptance of the Resignation of William Felkner from Chariho School Committee (N)@
B. Discussion of School Committee Member Duties (N)@
C. Permission to Post Chariho Act (N)@
D. Discussion with SRO (N)@
E. Approval of Donation of Playground to be Located at Richmond School (N)@
F. Approval of Middle School and High School Elective Courses (N)@
G. Transfer of Surplus for Hope Valley Masonry Project (N)@
H. Adoption of 2009-2010 School Calendar (N)@
I. Discussion of R.Y.S.E. School Name (N)@
J. Permission to Submit State Homeland Security Grant (N)@

VIII. Reports
A. Subcommittee Reports
B. Superintendent’s Report

IX. School Committee Requests for Future Agenda Items or Legal Opinions

X. Consent Agenda Items
A. Minutes
B. Transfers
C. Bills
D. Budget Summary
E. Treasurer’s Report
F. Personnel Actions
G. Permission to Issue Bids/Request Quotes
H. Permission to Award Contracts
I. Home Instruction
J. Grants
K. Donations



  1. Hi!
    I do not plan to be there tomorrow evening but this is “nonsense”! They do not even use precedent! If I recall correctly, and I will stand corrected, both Forrester Safford and Gregory Avedesian, formally submitted letters of resignation for school committee. There clearlt was no conscious effort by Mr. Felkner to vacate his school committee seat.
    It is indeed ironic, that I lost the last Town Council seat to Mr. Felkner, but this is thwarting the will of Hopkinton which is more offensive to any one person! These reasons make it highly offensive, and why people don’t trust politicians.
    BTW, Mr. Day is a person who needs to repect others. It has come to my attention that he recently called new State Sen. “Frank” Maher, and worked him over for not supporting State Sen. Dennis Algiere for another term as Minority Leader of the Rhode Island State Senate. Frank should be free to support the candidate for that position of his choice. I support Frank on what he wants to do on this. Bill Day should not be “burning bridges” with the State Senator who represents his town (Richmond), my town (Hopkinton), and part of Charlestown as well as Exeter and West Greenwich. Dennis represents most of Charlestown.

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — January 12, 2009 @ 12:24 pm | Reply

  2. Sad to see, but not unexpected. Who determines what to call an agenda item? Too bad someone respecting the democratic process didn’t put an item on the agenda titled, “The Illegal Actions of the Chariho School Committee”.

    I guess we can expect a replay of the November meeting.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 12, 2009 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  3. I would expect a repeat, unless someone from the AG’s office shows up.

    Comment by Gene Daniell — January 12, 2009 @ 2:20 pm | Reply

  4. Dig, dig, dig…….thats the sound of the SC going deeper and deeper.

    Comment by RS — January 12, 2009 @ 2:29 pm | Reply

  5. Just an observation, since it mentions discussion of his resignation, and he hasn’t submitted one, wouldn’t it be a violation of the open meetings act if the discussion moves away from the resignation discussion?

    Comment by Lois Buck — January 12, 2009 @ 3:13 pm | Reply

  6. I believe whoever wrote the agenda is claiming Mr. Felkner’s resignation is implicit by his acceptance of the Town Council seat.

    Here’s where the School Committee could, and should, get themselves in trouble with the court. By ruling the School Committee violated OMA by ousting Mr. Felkner, the judge could only be saying that his acceptance of the Town Council seat was not a resignation. If the judge felt it was a resignation, then there was no OMA violation since the School Committee would be correct in removing a non-School Committee member who was sitting with them.

    I guess you can argue the judge didn’t know what she was doing when she put Mr. Felkner back on the School Committee, but I think the judge was smart enough to know the implications of her decision. Apparently, at least some of the School Committee members, the ones ready to do it all over again, are not too smart…no surprise there.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 12, 2009 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  7. So once again, parts of the SC have been discussing events with the solicitor. My question still stands about who has access to the solcitor without the knowledge of the entire committee, and is it legal for only a few of the SC to conduct meetings with the solicitor without the knowledge of the other members ??

    Comment by RS — January 12, 2009 @ 4:12 pm | Reply

  8. I could be wrong, but I beiieve the chair can unilaterally discuss issues with the lawyer. Mr. Ricci definitely can as the stupid members of the School Committee gave him unfettered access to the lawyer.

    I suspect the meaningful discussions occur between Mr. Ricci and Mr. Anderson, and then Mr. Ricci filters it down (because he is the kingpin at the top of the heap) to the School Committee members he trusts to do his bidding.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 12, 2009 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

  9. Hi!
    Only town councils who fill school committee vacancies can accept a resignation although as a courtesy, the school committee may get one. It is obvious the Hopkinton Town Council does not consider a school committee vacancy exists from Hopkinton. Even if they did, it would not necessarily be correct.

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — January 12, 2009 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

  10. Who did Forester and Avedesian submit their resignations to? SC or TC?

    Does anyone know of involuntary ouster of a public official by implicit resignation?

    Sounds more like “expulsion”, which requires 2/3 vote

    Comment by Gene Daniell — January 12, 2009 @ 5:48 pm | Reply

  11. It is expulsion, but Mr. Ricci, with help from his merry band of idiots, is too clever to call it what it is. If they can pretend Mr. Felkner implicitly resigned they figure they will be keeping their hands clean. The judge should see right through their dishonesst word games, but will she care?

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 12, 2009 @ 5:55 pm | Reply

  12. I would imagine a jury during a civil suit would probably see through the antics, especially since a judge already ordered him back to the SC.

    Comment by RS — January 12, 2009 @ 7:17 pm | Reply

  13. I don’t understand this concept of “implied resignation”, where does it live in statute? To use a JA example, if Obama had not resigned from the Senate, his seat would have become “vacant” after he took the presidential oath of office, he would not have resigned. If the judge(s) ultimately decide against the dual office, they will declare the seat vacant, not declare Felkner resigned.

    Merriam-Webster uses “quit” as the synonym for the definition of “resign” used in context with “to give up one’s office or position”.

    The proper motion would be to “Declare Felkner’s seat vacant” … although, I don’t believe they have this authority, as a “creature of statute” (see C Anderson’s brief).

    Comment by Gene Daniell — January 12, 2009 @ 7:37 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: