Report Inappropriate Comments

Mr. Corrente,

I'm replying to you as a Warwick resident, parent, and taxpayer and specifically not as a School Committee member. I need to correct some of your info. First, Cranston's budget is not $23mil less. I think their current year's budget is $150mil, or $11 milion less. Plus, our teachers and the district pay into Social Security and Cranston's don't,(roughly $5-$6 million) so we're effectively down to about a $5 millon dollar difference. I also think that we run more buses over a larger georgarphy than does Cranston so that further reduces that difference. Also, I think our teachers earn more than Cranston. Lastly, Cranston's schools twice sued the City under the Carrulolo Act for more funding- unsuccessfully - and ran deficits to the point where they owed the City over $6 million (I think it may have actualy been closer to $9 million). My point is that it's not $23 million and when you peel back the layers, there are legitimate explanations for the actual difference. You may not be aware that Cranston has recently bonded to complete their fire code upgrades - a road that Warwick has already gone down and completed to the tune of roughly $11 mllion. I'm also fairly certain that their School Department is not going to paying the principal & interest on that debt either unlike Warwick.

The student poulation of 17,00 + students was back around the time Toll Gate was built or jkst before - somewhere around 1970. So your trajectory isn't really reflective of the last 20+ years and I don;t think really contributes to the discussion in any meaningful way.. Demographics are what they are and Warwick was built up and 'saturated' long before Cranston was (actually, I think Cranston has mnore buildable land left than does Warwick). Plus, Cranston doesn't have an airport that has taken hundreds of homes and caused hundreds of families to leave Warwick over the past 30 years.

Also, the School's budget is audited annually by law, I believe. When you say the City Council is at least 'accountable to the taxpayers' I'd remind you that we same taxpayers who elect their City Councilors also elect their School Committee members so I don't quite see your point. Nor do I understand how not having a School Committee would save the taxpayers "a ton". I think that statement is silly on it's face.

With respect to bonding, you should tour the schools to see what 25+ years of neglect has really wrought. It's impossible to fund the needed capital improvements out of the school's operating budget nor can you close enough buildings or lay off enough staff to obtain the necessary funds for those things that both SMMA and RIDE hasve determined needs to be done to our buildings. My felling is that we either give our students and teachers classrooms and conditions that are modern and conducive to 21st century learning or we don't - in the end. that will be the legacy we leave tomorrow's students and the rest of our community.

David Testa

Warwick resident