It seems the issue is simple and straight forward.

Other than Entitlement-minded fools like Providence FD Union Pwesident, Lazy-ass Pauly "No Show" Doughty, who, for 3+ years, arrogantly collected Taxpayer funded paychecks and benefits while "doing Union business", as opposed to the FF job he was paid to do, who can possibly argue with the INTENT of this ordinance / Charter amendment?

So the question should be whether Ms. Durfee bothered to ask for and obtain from the ACLU acceptable language that would satisfy the common sense intent of the proposal. Or did she simply speak to the ACLU to obtain a road-block.

In other words, did Ms. Durfee seek solutions or just problems?

Lastly, sometimes you just need to push on in spite of the lawyers opinion. There is a reason there are TWO lawyers in most cases ...as there is always another side.

Several of us, last night and today, have expressed the desire to be "a fly on the wall" of the Tiverton CVS when Justin K (a Kafka hero?) approaches Louise Durfee and asks her if she believes in God. One wonders if this could constitute "spiritual harassment"?

Various scenarios that might follow include Louise saying "yes", or "no", or asking "define God". A further favorite scenario seems to involve a can of pepper spray. But no. Ms. Durfee believes in free speech for everyone.

The crux of the question is why didn't they try to put forward a ballot question that doesn't pander to the virulent hatred by some voters of everything to do with the public schools. The original question (before the strike) is blatantly, laughably unconstitutional. Hence Durfee's concern about further litigation costs. Town Solicitor Tietz proposed the strike which was accepted by the Council. It IS an improvement, because even liberals like me do not want the school board to communicate with parents a message that they must override the cap at an upcoming meeting or the Sky will Fall. They never did that, anyway, but that surely would be illegal.
No, the current amendment probably also fails Constitutional review because (as the dynamic duo of Jeff Caron and Cynthia Nebergall hissed to my back when I was speaking last night), it MIGHT prevent even this mild and utterly acceptable result: The School Board makes phone calls, sends emails and and/or notes to parents which say: Next Wednesday night there is an important meeting open to all voters at the high school, the annual financial meeting, at which the school and municipal budgets of the town will be voted on. Whether or not you vote, we encourage you to attend."
Caron and Nebergall insist that such communication is verboten under the ballot question as amended (with the strike.)
They are woefully, tearfully wrong. (As usual.) The School Board WILL send such notices mext May, someone (maybe a lawyer we just mentioned) will challenge it, based on this Charter amendment which will be adopted overwhelmingly by slavering tax-crazed, misdirected voters in November. (For Pete's sake- to St. Peter we attest- four Democrats on the Council passed it, in part in a need to pander to the hoi polloi. Hello, Mr. Bollin.)

After a challenge, the challengers will have their butts kicked up and down the well manicured lawns of Nanaquaket Road by our steady practical courts.

You cannot ban a simple notice going out, which takes no view or opinion. Sorry, you cannot. Even if, as Mr. Bollin inappropiately worried, it goes out to a "narrow group". Since when are parents of 10 year olds narrow?

Let's call a spade a spade: this "amendment" has one purpose. It is not to restrict the incidental and tiny cost to the taxpayers of the schools sending a simple notice of a meeting of interest to people whose kids are in public school.

No, the purpose Caron, Nebergall and Katz and company have is to surpress the vote at Town Financial Meetings of parents with kids in public school. Keep them ignorant, are cabal says, and we will run the FTM and Get Our Way. Republicans, remember, are the party 'par excellance' when it comes to surpressing the votes of groups they want to dominate: blacks, Jews, Hispanics, people who can't read well, the poor, the foreign born, former prisoners who have served their sentences. Perhaps we should send Ms. Nebergall to Florida to help with the McCain campaign? Maybe Katherine Harris could come here and help beat down the FTM turnout so that God's chosen can rule?

The amendment going to the November ballot, the one I call the "May 28th Sour Grapes amendment"?: Big winner. Intent: woozy and vague, overly broad. Result: Free speech and democracy triumph and amendment struck down. Maybe even before May 2009.

Remember, you heard me right: tax dollars should not be spent to advocate a position. But that's not what this amendment does. It is to intimidate people and see to it they don't vote.

Richard,

Your extreme partisanship clearly illustrates that decades of propagandists' efforts to make voting "Democrat" equivalent to voting for what's "nice," "good," "right," and so on have yielded fruit among a certain set that wishes to obtain moral authority by default.

Republicans, remember, are the party 'par excellance' when it comes to surpressing the votes of groups they want to dominate: blacks, Jews, Hispanics, people who can't read well, the poor, the foreign born, former prisoners who have served their sentences.

It's beneath response. The following, on the other hand is worth response, because it's patently wrong:

It IS an improvement, because even liberals like me do not want the school board to communicate with parents a message that they must override the cap at an upcoming meeting or the Sky will Fall. They never did that, anyway, but that surely would be illegal.

Supt. Rearick's recorded phone call over the district's public system made clear that "existing programs" were threatened by the first financial town meeting result and ended thus (emphasis added):

In order for this to be avoided, please attend to express your concerns.

Illegal? Apparently not yet.

I think a more likely scenario than the one that you suggest is that the school committee permits the PTO, or some other "private" organization to do its work for it, perhaps with letters going home with children to parents, and the taxpayer side demands either a judicial rebuke or equitable opportunities, thus potentially sparking the challenge.

Alternately, the powers that be could just organize a private group with no inappropriate linkage with or access to the privileged resources of the town government and fight their budget battles on fair ground. Of course, I offer that with the understanding, from your previous writings, that you're more concerned that the "right side" wins than that a just and fair process is followed.

By the way, there's more going on behind the scenes than you might like to know. Sleep well.

"So the question should be whether Ms. Durfee bothered to ask for and obtain from the ACLU acceptable language that would satisfy the common sense intent of the proposal. Or did she simply speak to the ACLU to obtain a road-block.

In other words, did Ms. Durfee seek solutions or just problems?"

Great question.

So concern over potential litigation is the primary guiding force in this decision? That would be bad. It's possible to do something right and still get sued. Conversely, you may never do anything right if your first consideration is fear of a lawsuit.