House Minority Leader Patricia Morgan (R-District 26 Coventry, Warwick, W. Warwick) is once again calling on the Rhode Island Office of Attorney General to release legal settlement funds for school safety upgrades.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
House Minority Leader Patricia Morgan (R-District 26 Coventry, Warwick, W. Warwick) is once again calling on the Rhode Island Office of Attorney General to release legal settlement funds for school safety upgrades.
“We must work now to improve school security in our state. Our children, teachers and school staff deserve to go to schools that have security measures in place that prevent future tragedies,” said Leader Morgan. “The remaining Google funds are a perfect use for these essential upgrades, which could include bulletproof glass, containment areas, and advanced lock systems.”
The Office of Attorney General received $60 million from a $230 million settlement with Google in 2012. It has used the money for a variety of capital improvements, including new buildings and technology updates. The spending includes a new “customer service center” costing nearly $15 million from the funds; payment of recurring operating expenses, such as, guards, phone, sewer, water, gas, heating, cleaning services, and pest control; over $100,000 for generator rental, office promotional materials and many other less-than-critical items.
Leader Morgan commented on the spending. “The Attorney General seems to have spent this huge windfall, which was intended for law-enforcement and safety initiatives, on non-essential and often frivolous items. The new customer service center is an example. Until now, our state has done without a dedicated center. School security is undoubtedly a higher priority. And yet, to date, that office has failed to comment, let alone act to protect our schools.”
Spending from the Google funds was detailed in documents received by the House Minority Office. The Attorney General has purchased $79,000 worth of top of the line Microsoft Surface Pro tablets. The office separately purchased accompanying Microsoft pen accessories and additional devices. In another charge, the office spent $3,100 on lapel pins through All Things Considered Promotions. “It seems that the Attorney General is prioritizing inconsequential and wasteful spending over our children’s safety,” said Leader Morgan.
Roughly $36.9 million of the funds remain unspent, but this does not consider encumbered funds that are committed to be spent. The state budget office estimates that about $23 million is still available. Of all departments that received settlement funds, about $33 million is unused.
“Every district is unique and there is no blanket solution to school security. We should make this remaining money available to school districts across the state, allowing principals and superintendents the flexibility to use it on safety measures best tailored to their circumstances.”
4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
richardcorrente
Representative Morgans' idea is an excellent one IF the school is made accountable. I agree that the money provided should be made "flexible" to use on safety measures best tailored to each schools needs, but a list of what the money was spent on will keep the School Committees honest and responsible to the taxpayers.
Overall, this is an excellent bill in my opinion.
Happy Summer everyone.
Rick Corrente
The Taxpayers Mayor
Thursday, May 31, 2018 Report this
Justanidiot
times to get rid of all dose dangerously doors. one waze in and one ways out. and an armed guard at the doors. bringing in a guns little jimmy, nopes go homes. got an eff on your spilling test, gets back to class and stays there until youse passes. dont's understand basic economics, go backs to class
Thursday, May 31, 2018 Report this
Scal1024
Perhaps Corrente will have a response to this...?
Warwick Beacon (November 3rd, 2016)
By John Howell
Headline: Mayor's Race Hotter Than Usual
"Corrente continues to live in a house that was sold in a tax sale FOR TAXES DUE THE CITY. As a mortgage broker, Corrente says he knows the law and he said his lender Wells Fargo, broke the law on 14 occasions. He said he sued, won the case and that Wells Fargo "agreed to clear the title and they didn't." He said the matter continues to be litigated and the "city will get the taxes".
According to the Tax Assessors and Collectors, Correntes house sold in a August 2013 tax sale for $10,145.98 IN BACK TAXES. Foreclosure was processed in July 2014 and the property is currently owned by Red Stick Acquisitions ACCORDING TO CITY RECORDS."
Over $10,000 in back taxes, yet this idiot claims he's never paid his taxes late. The picture is beginning to become even more clear. Rick Corrente isn't qualified to serve on the City Council, he certainly isn't qualified to even run for mayor. The trail of litigation and unpaid tax bills is as far as the eye can see.
Monday, June 4, 2018 Report this
CrickeeRaven
Scal, that information literally can not be repeated enough -- not only because it so clearly gets under the make-believe mayor's skin, but because it provides an accurate picture of his past behavior.
And all he ever says in response is that the information is somehow "fake" and that, because someone is using a screen name on this website, they can't be trusted.
What he doesn't get is that you and I and other commenters are presenting information that is true -- it's factual, verifiable, and can be found by anyone who puts in the effort to find it.
In the case of the article you quote, the Beacon is the source for the factual information that he lost his residence to tax sale. You're just quoting it -- that doesn't make it "your" information or that you are somehow responsible for its veracity.
And your use of a screen name certainly does not somehow make that information "fake."
He's simply unwilling or unable to grasp this fairly simple concept -- and that's his problem, one of many that he has willingly shown readers of this website.
Like you, I wonder how he will respond to your comment -- but, given his past behavior, I suspect it will be either ignoring your comment and repeating his lies on the new articles that are published; shouting you down and calling you a liar; insisting that the facts presented are false; or again complaining that you use a screen name on a site that he doesn't own or manage.
What we don't have to wonder is how this latest campaign of his will end: He will lose decisively.
Monday, June 4, 2018 Report this