Chariho School Parents’ Forum

January 16, 2009

On to the Supreme Court

Filed under: Nov 18 meeting (where I was removed from office) — Editor @ 6:11 pm

Less than an hour before seeing the judge today, the Attorney General submitted the following amicus memorandum.  So, we are off to Supreme Court.

lynch_amicus

Judge Thompson also signed the following order reflecting the above action and her actions regarding the violation of OMA (in the efforts of full disclosure, the Chariho attorney wanted to note to the press that the judge could reverse her decision on the “violation” – always the spinster).

thompson_order

Advertisements

15 Comments »

  1. Good luck Mr. Felkner. I’m disappointed that the affair is being dragged out, but I’m hopeful the Supreme Court will see fit to restore our representation. The Attorney General focused on the Town Charter without noting the Hopkinton Town Council through the town solicitor believes our Charter allows for a person to hold both positions.

    Any chance the Town Council will have the solicitor file an amicus brief in support of Hopkinton voters’ right to elect you to serve us in both positions? I’d have to think the town has more credibility in interpreting our Charter than the Chariho School Committee? Especially considering some School Committee have admitted their personal motive in having you off the committee.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 16, 2009 @ 7:41 pm | Reply

  2. After reading the AG’s amicus brief, aren’t you struck by the severe importance of the process to remove an elected official? Quo Warranto petition is serious business. I still don’t understand why the burden isn’t on the SC to prove BF off …

    Comment by Gene Daniell — January 16, 2009 @ 9:32 pm | Reply

  3. I wonder if lynch even knows where “Hopkington” even is? What a dope…..if youre gonna issue a statement about a town in your state….learn the spelling of it! idiot….just another proof that the state line stops at the old gtech bldg

    Comment by i wonder wonder wonder wonder whooooo — January 17, 2009 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  4. Wow, I never even noticed. Don’t forget we’re all a bunch of ignorant woodchoppers down here, so maybe our town is named after Stephen Hopkings, not Stephen Hopkins? The Attorney General’s office misspelling Hopkinton is truly shameful and kind of funny.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 17, 2009 @ 10:55 am | Reply

  5. Good to see you comment Mr. Scaggs #3, yes the Dirty Lowdown. That is one of your better numbers. People are watching.

    Comment by Sandy — January 18, 2009 @ 9:36 am | Reply

  6. While Rhode Island continues to slink into the abyss again ( or every ten years) a couple of historical notes in February 1992

    Under the article entitled: Bill would allow repeal of mandates
    (not authored)

    Providence_ Sen. Albert J. Russo, R-Hopkinton, has introduced legislation which would allow school committees to repeal, postpone or reduce state mandates.

    The bill does not require communities to deal with education mandates, it allows towns to consider the merits of each state mandate and determine whether they are desireable and affordable, said Russo.

    Russo said the legislation gives local government “as much flexiblity as possible.”

    “If we are going to give communities more responsibility in terms of financing public schools, we also have to increase local control over all aspects of education,” said Russo.

    “I just think it is imperative that we give financially strapped communities the option to postpone or repeal mandates they cannot afford at the time,” said Russo.

    He said local leaders know the needs of their school best.

    BLOGGER NOTE, DO WE HAVE ANY SENATORS OR REPS WHO AREN’T BOUGHT/RECEIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO INFLUENCE THEIR VOTE, WHO WILL TRY AND HELP/REPRESENT THE COMMUNITITIES IN THIS STATE. JUST A QUESTION.

    Will they present legislation that would be signed off by the Governor.

    Comment by James Hirst — January 18, 2009 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

  7. Also on Friday February 7, 1995 Page 5, this time authored by KATHI BENOIT, Sun Staff Writer.

    Wood River Junction-
    The Chariho School Committee voted Monday night against joining the Exeter-West Greenwich district’s lawsuit challenging the state’s formula for distribution education aid.

    “The bottom line is the courts will address it, so why spend the money,” said John Earle, Chariho’s attorney.

    The Exeter-West Greenwich district filed the suit in Superior Court in December, claiming the state’s method of distributing education aid is unconstitional because it fails to provide basic education to students.

    According to Bradford Gorham, Exeter-West Greenwich attorney, the suit will cost taxpayers about $1,000 .

    The regionalized school district has asked Charlestown, Richmond, Hopkinton and Chariho to the suit. The Richmond Town Council voted last month to join the district in pursuing the suit.

    (Blogger note, praise the Richmond Council of 1992 that was on it and voted for such action).

    chariho officials say thery are willing to give “vocal support” to the suit but donot want to join the other litigants.

    Chariho Superintendent Robert A. Andreotti siad he would inform
    Exeter-West Greenwich that “we support the action but we’re not going to fund it.”

    The Charlestown council is scheduled to discuss the lawsuit at a council meeting on Monday.The Richmond council has asked Charlestown to draft a resolution supporting the equitable distribution of state aid.

    “This is definitely not in best interests,” said Charlestown Councilor Evelyn Smith at a Wednesday night agenda meeting.

    Councilors say theyare baffled by he formula. ut fear they would not get state aid if the formula changes.

    Considered an affluent community, Charletown is a minimum aid town received 25 pecent aid for education. The state’s minimum aid towns receive whether they needed or not.
    If the state reassesses its education aid formula, Charlestown could receive less or no aid.

    Authored by Kathi Benoit, Sun Staff Writer, Friday, February 7, 1992 Page 5.

    Comment by James Hirst — January 18, 2009 @ 2:20 pm | Reply

  8. Patrick Lynch couldn’t find his own behind if he used both hands. After the useless slaughter of the Station Fire while his head is still where the sun doesn’t shine can anyone be surprised?

    Comment by Tony D — January 18, 2009 @ 2:45 pm | Reply

  9. While circling around the STATE AID issues.

    Providence (AP)- The board of Regents for elementary and Secondary Education says the state should redribute education aid money from the wealthier districts to the poorer districts.

    the board has approved a legistlative package that also would change several factors in the way state aid to local districts is calculated.

    Based on the current state aid to education figures, 27 districts would lose money. Those losses range from $9,000 in Middletown to $1.3 in Westerly. Charlestown would be another loser.

    Another 11 towns, including Hopkinton and Richmond would profit
    with agains ranginf from $8,000 in the new Bristol-Warren District to almost $5 million in Providence.

    The proposed changes stem from recommendation submitted to the regents last month by the by the 21st Century Education Commisssion.

    The commission, appointed by governor, Bruce Sundlun last year to study pubic education, concluded that the way state money is now disbursed to local school districts discriminates against the poor.

    The regents say they endorse the commission’s proposals.

    “The stress on the poor communities is very heavy, Chairman, Frederick Lippitt said. “And (results) in places with social problems are fair lower. It’s just not right not to do something.”

    Th proposed bill would revise the way several variables are used to dertemine how much money local districts receive to run their schools: The changes include:

    -Eliminating the minimum amount local districts are now guaranteed for general operations.
    -Not counting parochial and private school students in the operations aid formula. Their inclusion now benefits districts with higher public school students.
    -Not counting transportation costs in the formula but instead reimbursing them as a seperate line item. Districts with high transportation costs now appear poorer than they are because of the present formula.

    -Reimbursing special-education expenses accroding to the same formula used for operations aid. Currently, every district is reinbursed for 46 percent of their special-education expenses.

    -Making sure communities that benefits from the changes do not relax the tax burden on their resients.

    “This creates a far more equitable system than we have now,” Lippitt said.

    FEBRUARY 7, 1992, PAGE 7, NOT AUTHORED, PROVIDENCE (AP)

    Comment by James Hirst — January 18, 2009 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  10. Hi!
    I wish my brother put his work in the regular press. He is an outstanding researcher! I contacted Mike Healey about the AG and Hopkinton spelling. Waiting for reply. Shared with the media. People in our town years ago were criticized for their spelling and their illiteracy, remember that?
    What is really missed in Charlestown and Richmond the Chariho School Committee if it prevails in the Felkner case, WEAKENS their own authority in a similiar case.
    Regards,
    Scott.

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — January 20, 2009 @ 5:46 pm | Reply

  11. yes, why doesn’t bill day and andy polouski run and provide the same that BF is trying to provide. Charlestown residents know why andy resigned as council president, what is Bill’s problem?. Maybe we can get henry to replace Andy on the Charlestown side. Maybe Oppenheimer will or can provide economic expertise for Richmond.

    Comment by United We Stand — January 21, 2009 @ 8:22 pm | Reply

  12. UWS … Sorry, don’t understand your post, is the “Henry” and the “Oppenheimer” the same person? What would henry oppenheimer be doing replacing Andy in Charlestown?

    Oppenheimer is respected around Richmond for providing economic expertise … what are you trying to say?

    Comment by Gene Daniell — January 21, 2009 @ 9:51 pm | Reply

  13. Henry Walsh in charlestown and Oppenheimer in Richmond. Are we squard up? Every one was a’Enry’, Enry the 8th I am? Walsh and Oppenheimer to replace Day and Polouski. Should be clear now.

    Comment by United We Stand — January 21, 2009 @ 10:29 pm | Reply

  14. Aah, ok, too many ‘Enry’ out there.

    Comment by Gene Daniell — January 21, 2009 @ 10:34 pm | Reply

  15. Mr. Oppenheimer was among those voting in favor of a vote of confidence for Mr. Ricci. Any credibility he had with me disappeared with his support of Mr. Ricci’s fiscal mismanagement at Chariho.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 21, 2009 @ 11:53 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: