hard deadlines

Here's a letter I sent to local papers on the proposed RIDE funding formula. The Sakonnet Times ran it this week (where it's already picked up 1,800 views online), and the Newport Daily News asked for tightening, so I hope they'll run it too.

To The Editor:
While it is long past time for Rhode Island to join the rest of the states in providing a stable funding formula for education, the plan recently proposed by the RI Department of Education (RIDE) does not meet the tests of fairness, transparency, and workability, and our state legislators need to modify or reject it.

First, fairness. According to a RI Public Expenditures Research Council report, our state ranks 45th in the nation in the percentage of total education revenues provided by the state for local schools, at just 36% (compared to a national average of 48%). That means regressive local property taxes — and taxpayers — are shouldering the majority of these costs. Under the new formula, this number would become a staggering 90% for a town like Portsmouth. I've posted RIDE's figures in a spreadsheet on GoogleDocs — http://bit.ly/aTgOUj — see for yourself.

Then there is the issue of transparency. RIDE brought in a consultant to produce a "core instruction" cost based on arithmetic averages of New England states, and this magic number, $8,295, is the baseline for state funding. The actual per-pupil cost for Portsmouth, third-lowest in the state, is $11,299, and we have been through a Caruolo action and a performance audit to testify to the efficiency of district operations. RIDE acknowledges their number does not cover the actual cost of putting a student in a classroom — it doesn't include transportation, utilities, food service, or out-of-district tuition, for example -- and yet they plan to reimburse for only a fraction (in Portsmouth's case, just 13%). It is puzzling to me that RIDE began with the assumption that the current funding level was appropriate and worked backward from there. If you tell a consultant to start with a target, of course they can create formulas to make the numbers work, whether or not they have any relationship to the facts on the ground.

And RIDE does not seem to have considered the implications for communities. Their formula would pull $18 million out of the East Bay, shifting that burden to municipalities already strapped for cash and constrained by the S3050 cap on the tax levy. While the RIDE proposal would phase the changes in over time, towns like Portsmouth would still lose $280K next year — an unsustainable cut. I personally asked Commissioner Gist if this meant that S3050 needed to be modified, and she said that RIDE would push for that change, but this is small comfort. The root questions — why the state is contributing so little, and whether the formula reflects the true cost of educating our children — have gone unaddressed.

Our legislature needs to step up here. For too long, enacting a funding formula has been considered tricky politically, and it is into this vacuum that the Board of Regents moved. But our elected representatives are the ones responsible for tax policy and budgeting, not bureaucrats at RIDE. I hope you'll join me in calling on our legislators to take this opportunity to finally make some tough decisions. The news may not be good for all communities. East Bay towns may lose some money. Maybe a lot of money. But the state share needs to be examined and justified. And it needs to be done openly and transparently -- by our elected representatives — and in a way that allows our districts to continue meet the needs of students as we move to the new normal. The proposal from RIDE fails on all of these criteria.

The Sakonnet Times has posted the obituary for Jay Humphrey; calling hours this weekend, service 1pm Monday from the United Congregational Church in Little Compton. Guest book and information at the Waring-Sullivan Home.

On March 5, I sent an e-mail to Brown professor Kenneth Wong, who developed the RI Dept. of Education (RIDE) proposed funding formula, asking him to explain some of the calculations. Last night, I got this note from RIDE.

From: "Cole, Kristen"
Date: March 11, 2010 7:50:29 PM EST
To: jmcdaid@torvex.com
Subject: FW: Request for information

Hi John -

Dr. Wong forwarded your email to me? There is a handout on RIDE's website that explains the state share ratio and provides the supporting documentation. Please go to www.ride.ri.gov and click on the Proposed Funding Formula link on the home page.

Kristen Cole
RI Department of Education

I thought that since Dr. Wong wasn't too busy to site down and explain his formula to the editorial board of the student newspaper, the Brown Daily Herald, that he might take the time to answer substantive questions from a reporter in one of the communities actually impacted by his formula.

Guess I was wrong.

The Portsmouth Concerned Citizens (PCC) ejected a Portsmouth Eagle Scout from their monthly meeting last week, according to a published report in today's Newport Daily News. Portsmouth High School senior Andrew Kelly, in a letter to the editor of the Daily News (reprinted below), questioned the PCC's non-partisan stance: "Shouldn't [they] welcome an open-minded citizen interested in bipartisan solutions?"

According to the Daily News, the group's president, Larry Fitzmorris (who is also listed as executive vice-president of the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition on their web site) claimed it was a "philosophical issue, not a party issue," but elsewhere in the article says that Kelly "is associated with what looks like the core of the Democratic Party." Sounds pretty non-partisan to me.

What can I say? Hey, Andrew, welcome to the club. I tried to join the PCC three years ago, but I didn't even make it inside the door. (See here, here, and here.) I guess their big tent (get it — tent?) can't accommodate quite so much diversity as one would expect.

As Larry told the Providence Journal back when they still covered Portsmouth, "I don’t recall us ever claiming to represent all the taxpayers of the town."

Here's Kelly's letter to the editor:

On Tuesday, March 2, I was kicked out of a meeting of the Portsmouth Concerned Citizens and I wanted to share my concerns.

I was invited to attend by one of the leaders of the PCC because of my interest in town affairs, but when I arrived at the meeting at the Anthony House on Middle Road, I was asked to leave because, it was said, I am a Democrat and running for office. Which I informed them is wrong. I am a Democrat, but while I am considering running for the Portsmouth School Committee, I have not declared my candidacy.

I am a lifetime resident of Portsmouth, have attended Portsmouth public schools, and will graduate from PHS in June. I am an Eagle Scout, an assistant Scout master for a local Boy Scout Troop, a Cub Scout Den Leader, the National Art Honors Society Historian at PHS and a parishioner at St. Anthony’s Church. I am the youth representative on the Portsmouth Economic Development Committee and I serve on the leadership board of a local non-profit organization. I have attended numerous School Committee meetings since my sophomore year when I successfully convinced the committee to revisit a proposed bus pass policy. I am, by any definition, a concerned citizen of Portsmouth.

And according to the PCC’s website “We are bipartisan and do not represent the views of any political party. We work to improve openness, efficiency and honesty of our town government.” I thought for sure that I fit all of those, given the amount of time I volunteer to community organizations.

As an Eagle Scout, I am deeply dedicated to honesty, openness, and efficiency. If they truly are a bipartisan organization, why would someone be excluded because they are a Democrat or might be a candidate for office? Shouldn't an organization with their stated goals welcome an open-minded citizen interested in bipartisan solutions?

Is the PCC really what they say they are? Form your own opinion.

Andrew Kelly
Portsmouth

Full disclosure: I am most likely one of those folks thought of as the "core of the Democratic Party." Whatever the heck that means.

Empty basketball court in Island Park

All the homemade skate rails and ramps have been removed from the basketball court in the Island Park playground. Today, there is only a smooth, empty asphalt surface.

But the process did not go without a hitch. According to Portsmouth Police Chief Lance Hebert, folks who had built the gear were advised by the town that it had to be removed due to liability concerns. As the ramps were being removed last night, Hebert said "officers responded for a disturbance."

One witness told me that a group of youths were congregating on Highland Avenue expressing their dissatisfaction at this turn of events. Hebert said, "A complaint was filed by a person who lives adjacent to the park which is being investigated by police at this time."

"Our main goal as a Police Department is to keep the peace in that area as best we can," Hebert said.

I join Chief Hebert in urging that all sides to keep this process peaceful and respectful of our neighbors and our community. There is a political process underway, and if people want to speak out, I would urge them to continue to put pressure on the Town Council.

For my part, I agree that liability concerns need to be addressed. However, this turn of events makes me question whether a long-term solution — like a promised facility in the old Town Dump — represents a complete answer, since it would be years off. That doesn't meet the needs of our kids right now.

Jay Humphrey, local businessman and past president of the Portsmouth Public Education Foundation (PPEF), passed away yesterday, according to an e-mail from current PPEF president Helen Furriel.

Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this sad time.

According to the Providence Business News, the folks at the free local news site Newport Now have bought the paper Newport This Week from East Bay Newspapers.

Congratulations and best wishes for great online-hardcopy synergies!