Anchor Rising: Point of Order, Mr. Chairman - Did the Committee Actually Vote on This <strike>Caruolo Action</strike> Litigation?

August 5, 2011

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman - Did the Committee Actually Vote on This Caruolo Action Litigation?

Monique Chartier

So last week, the Warwick School Committee became a James McLaughlin Award recipient by filing suit against the city to obtain $6.2 million in additional revenue for the school department. (We should take note of a matter that is undoubtedly completely unrelated: the Warwick teachers contract expires at the end of this month.)

A potential problem with the action, however, crops up in this Warwick Beacon article. (Kudos to John Howell for asking the right question.)

Asked whether the committee voted, committee member Teri Medeiros said, “The school committee discussed it and that decision was made.” She did not recall a vote.
Committee member Christopher Friel said a suit was discussed in executive session and a consensus was reached. Committee Chair Bethany Furtado said a discussion had taken place in executive session, but was unable to answer if there had been a vote.

She referred additional questions to school attorney and human resources director Rosemary Healey.

Wouldn't something as momentous as a lawsuit against the municipality require a formal vote, up or down, by the school committee? And if yes, isn't the validity of the lawsuit impacted by the apparent lack of a vote?

CORRECTION ADDENDUM

Marc points out that this is not a Caruolo lawsuit and also provides the basis for the lawsuit.

My understanding is that this is not strictly a Caruolo action, per se. The Warwick School department is essentially looking for clarification on: 1) Is this considered an education matter or a fiscal matter? 2) If an education matter, then Warwick schools believe the education commish has the authority to interpret the law. Does she? If so, then they argue that they should get the "old" number, etc.

8:10 AM | TrackBack (0)

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Monique, First, I don't know about the voting, but one clarification. My understanding is that this is not strictly a Caruolo action, per se. The Warwick School department is essentially looking for clarification on: 1) Is this considered an education matter or a fiscal matter? 2) If an education matter, then Warwick schools believe the education commish has the authority to interpret the law. Does she? If so, then they argue that they should get the "old" number, etc.

Posted by: Marc at August 5, 2011 9:00 AM

Thanks, Marc!

Posted by: Monique at August 5, 2011 9:21 AM

Monique, you also failed to include the quotes from another member of the school committee you had no idea that the committee was going to sue the city.

"There is some question as to how the committee decided to proceed with a suit.

“It came as a surprise to me,” said committee member Eugene Nadeau, 'I didn’t know that it was going through.'"

Posted by: Bob Cushman at August 5, 2011 4:09 PM

The State is broke and the school committee may sue the city for 6 million dollars? Incredible. Where would this money come from? Is there a magical bag of money somewhere? Here's a radical (sarcastic) idea.... the teachers contract expires in a few weeks, do like East Providence... 20% Health Insurance Co-Pays, no pay increases, be able to lay off more then 20 teachers per year. I doubt the school committe will have the guts do this. They talk a good game but that's all it ever is... talk.

People that live in Michigan must be laughing at us. Their new state slogan will probably be "hey, at least we're not Rhode Island".

Posted by: Bill at August 5, 2011 5:19 PM