School Department May Face Public Hearing Against Pell Design

The Rhode Island Department of Education has granted standing to a group of parents who've opposed the Newport School Committee's process in deciding the current design of the proposed Claiborne D. Pell Elementary School. However, even though a motion to dismiss their petition was denied, RIDE attorney Kathleen S. Murray still speculates that the chances the parents will succeed is slim.

The group submitted the petition to RIDE Commissioner Deborah Gist on Feb. 15. A decision released on Thursday denied any motion to dismiss that petition, yet cautioned that “the facts asserted to date do not establish a likelihood of success on the merits.”

What follows may be a full hearing if the group, led by parent Melissa Pattavina, decides to take on the school committee. The decision must be made by June 3 if they wish to pursue the hearing.

“This is going to cost tax payers a lot of money,” Superintendent John H. Ambrogi said. “Even the hearing officer is indicating that the likelihood of success is not there.”

Ambrogi said he and the school committee are ready to “vigorously defend the school department’s decision,” despite the significant cost.

A all along has been that the design process has not been completely open for public input and discussion.

Of the petitioners, seven are parents of children who will most likely attend the new elementary school. Their complaints include the issue of whether the school committee violated school construction regulations by failing to involve the Ad Hoc School Building Committee during the decision to adopt the “T” design of the school and not providing the public with a “meaningful role in reviewing this decision.”

The petitioners claim the failure for the school committee to involved the building committee in the vote to change the basic design violates RIDE’s school construction regulations. 

In her letter, Murray wrote the petitioners alleged that “the Newport School Committee and members of the school administration deceived the public as to the status of the decision on a design for the new school,” and that scheduled input sessions “failed to provide any meaningful opportunity for input on the school’s design.”

with the claim the public had not been involved and

“We’ve consistently solicited public input all throughout the process,” he said. “I don’t know how much more public discourse there could have been in this process. Everything has been out in the public. We’ve had forums and all of those activities have been documented.”

The school committee moved for the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the petitioners lacked standing because they are not “aggrieved” by the decision, and the school's construction, specifically the design, is not a legally protected interest.

“It may be, as the petitioners have argued, that the School Committee would have made a better-informed decision if it had heard the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee prior to changing from the ‘airplane’ to the ‘T’ design,” Murray wrote. “It may also be that a public engagement process preceding the selection of a general design for the school would have increased the community’s involvement in its schools and its support for local educational programs. However, even if public input into the selection of a design was not as extensive as the petitioners would have liked, this does not prove that the School Committee violated a law or regulation relating to schools or education.”

Ambrogi said that for now the project will continue on course.