Chariho School Parents’ Forum

February 10, 2009

Richmond weighs in

Filed under: Nov 18 meeting (where I was removed from office) — Editor @ 5:24 pm

Richmond has filed a motion with the court supporting Chariho.

Richmond Motion



  1. I knew there were still some unknown reasons why I moved out of Richmond. Today there were answered, on the local level and at the State level through Rod Driver.

    Comment by RS — February 10, 2009 @ 5:50 pm | Reply

  2. I guess the Richmond town council never heard of the word “recuse”. Then again considering the wide lattitude the Ethics Commission has used in the past with the SC, they might have an agenda……oops, did I say agenda, I meant point.

    Comment by RS — February 10, 2009 @ 6:16 pm | Reply

  3. Who cares? The previous Richmond Town Council gave Mr. Ricci a vote of confidence. Does anyone take them seriously anymore?

    Honestly, we could fantasize about any number of conflicts between any two positions in government, but it doesn’t mean they are valid reasons to disenfranchise a town and throw out the results of a legal election. This is the same mentality that has us voting again and again every time Chariho doesn’t get what it demands.

    This isn’t about incompatibility, it is about Mr. Felkner. None of these people, or those before them, cared a whit about incompatibility when we had members serving both the Chariho School Committee and individual town School Committees. The conflict was much more obvious and real, yet not a peep about it.

    They dislike Mr. Felkner because he advocates for transparency and accountability. While they are voting to support incompetent and irrepsonsible administration, Mr. Felkner is making the public aware of all the problems. This is why they want him gone. Every other excuse is a joke.

    There’s no telling with judges, but if they go by the law (or lack thereof), this case is a no-brainer. If they make a political ruling, well then we have much bigger problems than Mr. Felkner serving the community in two positions.

    Comment by Curious Resident — February 10, 2009 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  4. While the Richmond solicitor does a good lawyerly job of coming up with possible conflicts, to me it comes back to Hopkinton, who elected Felkner to both posts, and their town solicitor, who’s okay with this application of his town’s charter. I don’t see any leg that the school committee may have to stand on; they are arguing points in the Hopkinton charter when Hopkinton has no issue!

    Comment by david — February 10, 2009 @ 10:49 pm | Reply

  5. I notice the “All the children, all the time” slogan is conspicuosly absent from any of the “Lets get rid of BF” rhetoric. Doesn’t it strike the voters and taxpayers as strange when most SC’s are moving toward fiscal restraint and turning to their communities for help and support, Chariho is moving in the opposite direction. Why?

    Comment by RS — February 11, 2009 @ 9:00 am | Reply

  6. Hi!
    Some of you may have seen my letter in The Sun last night about Richmond Town Council and the Felner matter.It is interesting they see a conflict in Mr. Felkner continued service on the school committee, while a longtime member from their town on the school committee, clearly would appear to have a more common conflict, with two family members employed by the Chariho Regional School District. This letter was submitted after another longer letter was submitted on the Rhode Island General Assembly and education.

    Comment by Scott Bill Hirst — February 11, 2009 @ 11:24 am | Reply

  7. Actually it’s not all that interesting……….it has a name………it’s called agenda.

    Comment by RS — February 11, 2009 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  8. Yep…the same town that give us Billy-boob and his family connections has the gonads to whine about theoretical conflicts for Mr. Felkner. Almost as funny as their vote of confidence in Mr. Ricci. Richmond has nothing on Hopkinton’s “illiterate woodchoppers”.

    Comment by Curious Resident — February 11, 2009 @ 3:44 pm | Reply

  9. It’s not gonads, professionals refer to it as a character flaw.

    Comment by RS — February 11, 2009 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  10. This from the same TC that brought you Mikey Sullivan and his recusing on DEM mattters while Pres of the Council?? (at least publicly) and of course then we have Billy D. on the SC. why does Richmond keep voting for him?

    Comment by Janey — February 18, 2009 @ 12:05 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: