After hearing only a few minutes of testimony today, Judge Gilbert Indeglia ruled in favor of the Portsmouth School Committee, but reduced the number their accountants recommended by $200K. While not a complete victory for the schools (that would have been never having gotten this far) it was a "trial on the merits of the controversy," and the decision, once and for all, validated everyone who believed that the PCC had been unreasonable at the Tent Meeting.

Judge Indeglia took the bench at 2:24, and wrapped up the case with about five minutes of questions for David Faucher about warrant items. But first, he went out of his way to reassure Dr. Lusi about his comments from yesterday's session, in which he talked about "monitoring" Portsmouth. This was not, he said, judicial intervention, but was "only in the event of the need for a second Caruolo," and "It was never my intent that I was going to take over your job."

With Faucher on the stand, Indeglia queried him about the dollar amounts in the warrent items, some $140K for IT and $577 for building projects. "If I determine there's a need for more money," said Indeglia, "and suggested the technology account, what would be the process?" Faucher said he'd run it past the Town Council, then move the money to the school budget.

Indeglia had clearly heard enough. He called the attorneys to the bench, conferred, and then court recessed. In a move that seemed surprising to those familiar with Caruolo proceedings, he was going to deliver his ruling immediately.

There was a tense buzz in the room. The PCC contingent, swelled to 5 members and two attorneys for today's session, caucused in the hallway. Marge Levesque from the school committee chatted with two folks from town who had stopped by to offer support.

Then, Indeglia came back. He thanked all the participants, and noted that "there is no more difficult job than being a member of a municipal council or board. It's a thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it."

He then recited a synopsis of all the testimony from the past three days, with particular emphasis on the numbers from the accounting firms of B&E and Parmelee. "The court has had a chance to listen, and was impressed by the professionalism of all who appeared. The decision in no way reflects negatively on any experts. B&E was for the most part closer to the situation...they were involved going back to last spring. Seems to me that the court should give greater weight to their testimony."

That sounded like good news. "I am for the most part satisfied; it seems to me that to find 1% was not possible." You could hear the 'however' coming, and the next sentence brought it. "The court feels adjustments can be made to the $787-thousand, the base figure which it accepts."

Ah, hell, I thought, there goes the program audit. But I was wrong. What followed was a list of "suggestions only" of areas in which Indeglia felt adjustments were possible: "100K in Medicaid reimbursements." (In direct contradiction of Walter Edge's analysis which suggested that number was unrealistic.)

"The performance audit. $84K" Yeah, that one didn't surprise me, given his line of questioning on Monday and Tuesday. "The court has reviewed the statue, and we have a difference of opinion, but the statue says 'upon bringing.' If the legislature wanted something that went beyond the present year, they would have expressed that. [A program audit now] would be like paying an expert witness in a medical malpractice trial after the jury has decided."

But then, as judges are wont to do, he turned on the good cop. "If anything, one of the things I've learned from this process is how much local education is controlled by Federal and state regulations. I understand how school committees can feel frustrated." Gee, thanks, your honor.

One bed from the fund covering anticipated expenses from Boys & Girls town. $17K.

No full time finance director for you, Dr. Lusi. Stick with a part timer to save another $17K. Oh, and by way of explanation, "I wish school departments would use some of the many talented retired business people to assist in the running of school departments to bring their expertise -- and they would work for less money." Can you imagine a judge in, say, a bankruptcy case of a $32M business making a similar suggestion? Or any other municipal agency? Why is it that even intelligent, well-intentioned people think that running a school is something to be done by amateurs and part-timers?

And those warrant items -- well, he wasn't going to touch the ones subject to state reimbursement, but he figured you could take $25K from the IT warrant.

The bottom line? "$544, 051. The school committee can use any areas they want to go to for cuts, for the Town Council, it will now be necessary to raise that. I'm not going to tell them how, I believe they have the sovereign right. They can use their surplus, cuts in their municipal budget, or go to the taxpayers. I'll continue to retain jurisdiction. These figures are now fixed."

Denise Myers rose with a question, "About the program audit. We've not addressed the interpretation of the statute..."

"I've interpreted it," Indeglia said, cutting off discussion.

And that was it. If the accountants are right -- and Judge Indeglia said there was no reason to doubt them -- the schools still had less than enough money to finish the year.

Gina Macris of the ProJo cornered Dr. Lusi, who said, "I respect the judge's fairness," she demurred. ;) "But while he says that what he offered were only suggestions, there was ample evidence that there were no other areas to cut."

Meghan Wims from Newport Daily News was talking with Len Katzman. "Is it enough?" she asked. "No facts were presented that this was the right number," Katzman replied.

Town Council attorney Denise Myers said much the same to Wims. "The PCC used a discretionary number, the judge used a discretionary number. Why are we using experts?"

Why indeed? If there's one thing that I, as a layman, have learned from all this, it is just how deeply ingrained antipathy to education is in the American psyche. You routinely hear PCC yammerheads get up and meetings and talk about how the school board should consult the populace directly on the vision for the schools, as if these people had ever heard of Dewey, or Gardner, or Illich. (Man, now THERE'S an infield for you. Dewey to Gardner to Illich. Double play. Oh... wait. Illich is refusing to step on the bag. But fortunately, the first base umpire is Jacques Derrida, who doesn't notice. Hey you PCC readers -- yes I mean you -- did you get that? No? Then shut the fuck up.)

Where was I. Oh yeah.

It's one thing for the casual taxpayer to ignore the fact that education is a profession. But it's quite another to see a Superior Court judge, from the bench, opine that schools don't need professional management. Oh, sure. Retired executives from toilet companies could probably knock this off in two days a week and save the taxpayers a bundle.

If you treat management as a cost center, rather than a source of strategic vision, you are ignoring the evidence of the last fifty years of management theory and practice. When was the last time some retired, 40% duffer turned around a major corporation?

But I digress.