Editor’s note: The following was sent recently to the members of the Cape Elizabeth Town Council.

I just became aware of two articles dealing with the adoption of school budget appearing on the town Web site and in the Current. The headlines of both articles are both inflammatory and inaccurate while the contents are misleading at best.

The following is the specific language of the budget adoption motion approved by the full board:

“I make a motion to approve the 2005-06 school budget in the amount of $17,502,204.00 of which $3,220,104.00 is additional local funds which exceeds the State’s Essential Programs and Services funding model by $1,320,084.28. The School Board recommends $1,320,084.28 for the following reason: The state’s funding model does not support all of the costs of the schools because it includes only those costs considered essential by the new state Essential Programs and Services (EPS) model.”

As you can see, we adopted a budget in the amount of $17,502,204.00 which represents an increase of $946,343.00:

This consists of $400,000 of new debt service you exempted from inclusion as part of the cap.

$546,343 in NET new expenditures which is equal, exactly, to the Council adopted CPI-U cap of 3.3%.

We unanimously adopted a second motion specifically authorizing us to: “Request $58,500.00 for tenth grade laptops outside the adopted budget proposal and outside the 3.3% CPI-U cap.”

The request is based on a fundamental difference in interpretation of your resolution regarding funds related to the people’s adoption of the June 2004 statewide school funding referendum (Question 1A) vs. the legislation actually adopted … a combination of Question 1B and the Essential Programs and Services model.

We believe that certain funds are specifically designated (targeted) for very specific educational purposes. We believe these funds are separate and distinct from the increase in General Purpose funds attributable to the people’s adoption of Question 1A and the legislature’s subsequent manipulation of the referendum.

This is why there is a second motion to consider laptops outside the adopted budget proposal. We are simply asking that an opportunity for discussion of the matter be accommodated.

In addition the Current cited a question of Elaine Moloney in such a way as to suggest she wanted “off the record” conversations with you. Her words were really a question as to the need for additional sessions between you and us.

Through all of our meetings, discussions, and deliberations our intent has clearly been to honor your resolutions during the 2005-2006 budget process…regardless of whether or not we agree.

We are hopeful that continued open discussions, not reliance on questionable reporting, will continue to be the basis for our relationship.

Kevin Sweeney

Chairman, Cape Elizabeth School Board