News from the General Assembly

BY ABBY FOX

Two bills sitting in committee in the state house and senate could, if passed, leave East Greenwich with no state aid for education.

Rep. Edith Ajello of Providence, the deputy majority leader, and Rep. John Savage of East Providence proposed house bill 7957, “The Education Equity and Property Tax Relief Act,” that would re-allocate how much state aid every town receives.

The same day in February, Sen. Hannah Gallo of Cranston and Sen. Rhoda Perry of Providence proposed senate bill 2650, with the same title by the chief purchasing officer.

Narragansett’s almost identical share, $1,897,159, would also drop to $0.

Newport’s share would be cut by more than $11 million to $0.

South Kingstown’s portion would be cut by more than $10 million to $0.

Westerly’s would be cut by more than $6 million, to $0.

Portsmouth’s aid would be cut by more than $6 million, to $0.

Block Island’s aid would be cut by $106,345, to $0. Jamestown’s would drop by $531,908, to $0.

But not every town stereotyped as wealthy is getting hit, such as Barrington, which would actually see its state aid increase to $28,507, for a total amount of $2,628,033.

School Committee Chair Sue Cienki said that even though the bills were introduced in February, she got wind of it just two weeks ago at a meeting among other school officials.

“They didn’t have a public hearing on it,” she said – another sore point for schools under the ax.

The prospect of getting zero funding from the state may sound preposterous, but Cienki said she intends to take the legislation seriously. After all, “The state is in a fiscal crisis,” she said.

Maryanne Crawford, the school district’s director of administration, said she hadn’t quite figured out the bill’s formula but it was plain to her that waterfront towns are being slashed, while urban areas aren’t taking a similar hit.

Providence’s share, for example, would soar under the proposed legislation, by nearly $50 million, leading to a total state aid of $243,784,089.

Not all urban schools would fare well, though. The state aid to Central Falls, for example, a very poor school district, would decrease by $2,553,047, for a total of $41,320,826.

And Newport, while it “has some beautiful mansions, also has some of the highest poverty rates,” Cienki added.

The bills’ purpose, according to the General Assembly web site, is to “establish a new system for the support of public education in RI, based upon an objective assessment of student needs and designed to assure predictability and accountability in the funding.”

The reality, Cienki said, is that it would “really limit the quality and type of programs we’ll be able to offer in the future. This is not equitable funding.”

The state should be aware that if the state cuts off funding, it should be prepared for towns realizing that they’re no longer feel bound by strict state mandates.

The house bill was sent to the house finance committee and a hearing on it was postponed at the request of the sponsor, according to the General Assembly. The senate bill was sent to the senate finance committee.

Lenihan and others scrutinize state’s purchasing practices

The Senate Committee on Government Oversight, chaired by Sen. Michael Lenihan (D-East Greenwich, North Kingstown, and Warwick), has announced a 10-bill legislative package to improve the state’s purchasing practices.

The committee conducted an investigation for six months last session into the state’s purchasing practices, made through the Department of Purchasing.

The result was a report detailing  “17 areas of concern.”

The biggest are of concern? Bidding.

“A centerpiece of the package is legislation that requires greater detail and transparency with regard to written determinations, when deviating from the traditional competitive bid process,” according to the press release.

“The legislation requires that these determinations be detailed, signed and dated. Additionally, they are to be considered a public record upon making the determination, and posted on the Division of Purchasing’s website. Furthermore, the legislation requires that the contract to which the determination applies shall not be awarded until after a 30-day waiting period in order to allow for public review of the decision.”

These “written determinations” would go online, so any member of the public could view “the public official who signed the document; date; the state agency or government entity requesting the procurement” the bills state, as well as the “purchase order, vendor name and dollar amount of the contract.”

A major idea behind the legislation is to be able to keep track of contracts that change or grow substantially.

For instance, bill 2942 states that any contract that increases more than 10 percent or has a material change to one or more terms be re-bid.

The next step is to send the legislation back to committee for hearings, before the Senate reviews the bills.

Language from the bills:

2940: “a registry of leases entered into by the state” would go online, within 24 hours of “their execution”;

2945: “all oral discussions conducted with responsible offerors who submit proposals shall be memorialized in writing and all such writings shall be deemed public record at the time the contract is awarded and shall be made available for public inspection.”

2946: This bill allows for every rule to be posted on the Secretary of State’s web site and make “all” written records public.

2948: “determinations in state purchasing” would be posted on the web, maintained by the chief purchasing officer.