Letter: School bond very different than what was sold to voters

Posted 7/3/24

To the editor:

Portsmouth School Committee Chair Emily Copeland and I agree that a number of the school projects paid for by the recent bond were needed and are valuable. The issue is that the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Register to post events


If you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here.

Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content.

Day pass subscribers

Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.


Letter: School bond very different than what was sold to voters

Posted

To the editor:

Portsmouth School Committee Chair Emily Copeland and I agree that a number of the school projects paid for by the recent bond were needed and are valuable. The issue is that the school bond is very different from what the School Department sold to the public!

The bond financials presented by the School Department had $528K of state reimbursement coming to Portsmouth in 2025. During the recent budget process that money was not in the budget. I investigated and found this was one of a number of significant changes that had been made to the bond after it was approved by the voters. The financial impact of those changes to the taxpayer is about $2 million!

Taxpayers who paid for both the bond council (RIHEBC) and the financial advisor (PFM) to help the School Department determine that bond, have a right to be upset when, a year or two later, it is discovered the bond the voters had agreed to was substantially altered and is much more expensive. Furthermore, those changes were made without any public disclosure and do not seem to be justified by market conditions.

My point is the voters who approved the bond were repeatedly presented with a very precise and professionally calculated set of financial bond data by the School Department. The voters liked what they saw. As a result, the bond referendum passed. However, without being notified of any changes, the residents now find the bond they are paying for is a substantially different financial instrument and it is $2 million more expensive.

I do not understand why Ms. Copeland is upset with my use of the word “deceived” because this situation is the dictionary definition of being “deceived.” As an elected official representing the voters, why is she defending this deception and attacking the resident who discovered it? Instead she should investigate how this could have happened, determine whether the changes were justified, and then take steps to prevent such an egregious lack of transparency from occurring again!

Tom Grieb

110 Thayer Drive

Portsmouth

2024 by East Bay Media Group

Barrington · Bristol · East Providence · Little Compton · Portsmouth · Tiverton · Warren · Westport
Meet our staff
MIKE REGO

Mike Rego has worked at East Bay Newspapers since 2001, helping the company launch The Westport Shorelines. He soon after became a Sports Editor, spending the next 10-plus years in that role before taking over as editor of The East Providence Post in February of 2012. To contact Mike about The Post or to submit information, suggest story ideas or photo opportunities, etc. in East Providence, email mrego@eastbaymediagroup.com.