hard deadlines

At last night's meeting of the Portsmouth school finance subcommittee, the perennial question of what to do with the one-room Prudence Island (PI) schoolhouse was met with a new proposal: send the 3 students to the Bristol-Warren school system in a move that could save the district about $44K.

The members of the committee — Michael Buddemeyer (chair), Marilyn King, and Marge Levesque — as well as alternate member Dick Carpender and school committee members Angela Volpicelli and Sylvia Wedge discussed the proposal and heard from some of the 10 community members in attendance.

"I know this is not what you want to hear," said Superintendent Susan Lusi, explaining that the financial situation was forcing tough choices. "I would prefer to keep Prudence Island open, I would prefer to keep Elmhurst open, I would prefer to keep all staff and pay them what we're contractually obligated." However, she said, since last year the school committee had voted to close the school and had only deferred that action for one year, "Absent action, no further vote [is required to close the school]. It's difficult to justify paying that money for two students."

School Finance director Christine Tague put the current cost of educating each of the three students at $52,191, compared to the district average of $11,168. Sending the students to Bristol-Warren would still incur costs for transportation and out-of-district tuition, but would still be cheaper by $44,258. But for some members of the audience and committee, the financial argument was not compelling.

"It shouldn't matter," said PI resident Allan Bearse. "It's the cost of educating the students. If the cost of educating the students in Portsmouth was huge, it wouldn't matter, you'd have to do it." Bearse also probed on whether the RI Department of Education (RIDE) had approved the plan. Lusi responded that there was nothing in state law which prevented the district from this action, but after back-and-forth with Bearse about last year's RIDE decision, indicated that she would check.

Resident Kathy Melvin argued that the $44K savings could be found elsewhere. "Further scrutiny of the budget would come up easily with that," she said. "We have some children we shower [resources] on because of their status," she said, describing some of the spending as "luxury items." She reiterated her call from the last meeting to "Start where the bulk of the monies are spent."

PCC, Inc. President Larry Fitzmorris asked about the overall budget. "What was the guidance with regard to total budget increase," he asked, to which Lusi reiterated the budget scenarios that the committee had asked to consider, reductions of state aid in the amounts of 5%, 10%, and the full 18%. He noted that this was only a projection of state cuts, and in what I interpreted to be a reference to the Town Council's goal of a 5% reduction from all departments asked, "So there is no budget guidance to the administration on how much the budget should increase?" Lusi again discussed the ranges associated with those projections.

"The total town request," said Buddemeyer, "Is not even on my radar." Nor, indeed, is there a compelling reason that it should be, in my opinion. Given that a 5% cut would produce, according to numbers discussed at the last meeting, a deficit of as much as a $3M, this would appear to be a non-starter. Should the school finance team spend time and taxpayer money preparing a budget which, on its face, is in violation of the state law requiring schools to have balanced budgets? Is that really the intent of the Town Council?

The committee moved on to a review of salaries, which are projected to grow, solely through existing contractual increases, by about $420K year-on-year. Buddemeyer asked what would be required to reopen contracts to implement zero pay increases, and Tague replied that the committee would need to give that direction to school administration. "Is this something we should put to a vote this evening?" asked Buddemeyer, and Lusi said they should discuss it in executive session, since contract negotiations are ongoing.

Oh, and one more tidbit about contracts. Unsuccessful Town Council candidate Joe Robicheau asked the committee, "Is there state law that says the contract has to specify medical benefits?" When Lusi replied that she wasn't sure, Robicheau said, "Should we not consider removing them from the contract?"

If I heard it correctly, this was a request to take medical benefits out of the contract for our employees. While I'm sure the intent was not to remove the benefits themselves, but rather their contractual protection, this still struck me as a pretty chilling notion.

Hey, all you Elmhurst parents. If you really care about the great teachers that we have in our system, just imagine what taking health benefits off the table would do to our ability to attract and retain talent. It's not just about buildings. There are those who see in this crisis the opportunity to push through changes that would never have been considered in normal times. Thanks to those who've been showing up at these meetings — I'm sure there'll be a good turnout on Thursday at 5:30 when the Finance Subcommittee takes up the question of Elmhurst.