Attorney says recessed Foster‑Glocester financial meeting cannot be altered; committee presses for clearer tuition numbers and charter review

The Foster‑Glocester Regional School Committee spent the bulk of its meeting addressing legal questions about the regional financial town meeting and whether voters or the committee can alter the budget after the public hearing.

Greg, the district's attorney, told the committee the enabling public law that created the Foster‑Glocester regional district requires a public hearing at least 10 days before the annual regional financial meeting and that the school committee adopts a final proposed budget at that hearing. "You cannot change that," he said, explaining that the budget adopted at the hearing is the one that must be sent to and acted on by town voters. He further cautioned that an extended recess of the financial meeting can, in practice, terminate that meeting and require starting the process over with a new warrant, a new public hearing and another financial meeting.

That legal framing set off detailed questions from members and residents about timing and substance. Several members and attendees said the tuition and student‑count projections presented at the financial meeting differed materially from later figures; one participant said tuition was underestimated by roughly $500,000 and asked why the discrepancy appeared only at the financial meeting. "Does it or does it not follow Robert's Rules?" asked resident Brian Kelly during public comment, pressing moderators' responsibilities.

Committee members pressed whether voters at the financial town meeting could cut or add funds and how state maintenance‑of‑effort rules limit changes to amounts assessed to the two towns. Attorney Greg said voters may change only the overall budget amount, not individual line items, and that state maintenance‑of‑effort provisions constrain which local charges can be reduced. "So, you can't change anything" at the financial town meeting except the total, he said.

Several members urged clearer pre‑hearing communication and more accurate tuition forecasting. "We need to dial those [tuition] numbers in a little bit," one member said, urging staff to present the expected tuition and state aid earlier so voters and the committee have time to respond. The superintendent and business office described their conservative forecasting approach (budgeting below expected tuition to protect local taxpayers) and committed to follow‑up meetings with concerned residents and further subcommittee work.

Public speakers and some committee members also objected to a $400,000 use of fund balance included in the proposed budget, calling it an unnecessary "safety valve" if anticipated tuition revenue materializes. Staff responded they have historically budgeted some fund balance and frequently have not needed to spend it; they said removing the figure can be considered in next year's subcommittee process.

Members asked for a charter review and policy updates to clarify what happens if a financial meeting fails and how recesses are handled. The attorney and several members recommended that the committee consider charter amendments and internal budget‑policy changes so the public process and the district's legal responsibilities are more transparent.

The committee closed the topic by asking staff and subcommittees to prepare clearer materials for the April 14 reconvened financial meeting, to make the most recent presentation materials available beforehand and to schedule further policy and charter review items for upcoming agendas.

The committee then moved on to other business, including routine votes and policy items.