In my entry yesterday I referenced TWO formats being used by the SAD63 business office. It has been my impression (now incorrect as I've just had clarified) that the format used for the Statement of Operations was being generated by an outside source/agency whereas the Excel format used in the Proposed Budget mailer was the only one from the School District's Business Manager. (I do know the Business Manager has stated she can only produce the Projected Budget in Excel -so now I have twice as many doubts about that).
According to a reporter from Holden, BOTH formats are generated by SAD63's Central Office - aka the Business Manager's office. The Statement of Operations is/was generated by the ADS computer system purchased by the school district some years ago - at no small price. One must presume it incorporates the data generated by the contracted Payroll Processing agency which appears to receive over $6,000 annually for this service. (Although, it is my understanding that the current Business Manager was supposed to handle the payroll herself in exchange for her initial salary which was higher than her predecessor who DID do the payroll without any outside contracted service. At least that's what I've been told by at least three different sources.)
So my question is STILL - If there is a computer generated system producing the Statement of Operations in SAD63's Central Office, why isn't the proposed budget produced in the same format as the Statement of Operations so that the voters could compare the previous year's expenses with those being projected for the coming year? If the Business Manager hasn't learned how to make that happen in the five years she's had the position, why? Isn't that her job? Especially when she's being paid over $72,000 annually to be able to produce understandable documents that are Public Documents.
(BTW, if this new budget is passed, the individual will receive a significant pay raise in addition to having her contract extended by three years!) That means SAD63 will be paying its Business Manager over one-third of what the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is paid - and he has a much larger area of responsibility.
I just know, after attending School Board meetings and Budget and Finance Committee meetings (including a Citizens Advisory meeting) that what I do understand doesn't hold any water for all the reasons noted in previous blog entries. Especially now with this clarification.
Thanks, Holden.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
SAD63 - June 4 Meeting - A Shell Game for voters
After reading the packet on the 2009-2010 Proposed School Budget mailed out by the (Interim) Superintendent of Schools and the Chairman of the School Board - and the procedures that will be in place for the June 4th "vote" at the Holbrook School, I'm fairly sure the entire procedure will be a waste of time for voters/taxpayers to attend. This change of position is based on big and small reasons but the bottom line remains the same. The document fails to present sufficient information to the average (or even fairly informed) voter to follow the "rules" of the June 4th process. Nor should we need to. The sum total is what the taxpayers will have to pay and that is the only question we should be addressing.
How the School Board figures out a sum total of what the taxpayers can afford - what the economic times will enable the people to pay - is the Board's responsibility. And it's high time the Board started driving the train instead of being the caboose.
Why the Proposed Budget Format fails to provide the voters with the necessary information to "play by the rules" of the June 4th Vote.
In reality two different formats are used in the district to track budgeted and spent funds in the various categories listed in Annual (actual) and Proposed Budgets. The actual budget's Statement of Operations' expenditures are tracked by a contracted firm which documents how much money has been budgeted for the year (and spent monthly and year-to-date). The voters are not provided with this information. This information is only provided to the Board's Budget & Finance Committee and members of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
However, the information from the contracted firm did not correspond to the Proposed Budget when it was presented by the Business Manager when the Citizens' Advisory Budget & Finance Committee met in May. (And even that report was months late.) And one member's spread sheet showed close to $1,000,000 of unaccounted for money. No satisfactory explanation for this was received. Similar issues regarding the lack of comparative budgets were presented at the Public Hearing on May 13.
There is a more than capable computer system in the district's Central Office that could have provided more than adequate explanations for these issues - issues that would never existed if accountability and clarity had been a priority for the past five years. But here we are with a budget that has increased by over $600,000 in the past four years.
Bottom Line: If people are expected to believe the numbers are valid, the formats and reporting procedures should be consistent. Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Right now there's plenty of room for doubt.
Information only discussed at the School Board meetings (and not footnoted on the Proposed Budget) clearly indicate that some of the costs included in this Proposed Budget are either (1) one-time only costs, (2) were included in high school tuition costs based on factors that have now changed and therefore the costs are no longer valid, (3) merit increases or raises that other school districts or areas of employment have recognized need to be deferred during these economic times, and (4) include salaries that are seriously inflated. Last, but certainly not least, non-teaching contracts due to expire in 2010 should not be extended for three years (which will happen if this budget is approved) when the district may be consolidating thereby making these positions redundant (possible duplicates of other positions which may come with consolidation). The last thing we need is to be paying off long-term contracts for people we are no longer employing.
Now - according to the next to the last page of the mailing, entitled "Warrant for Annual Budget Meeting", the voters will be required to vote section by section "what sum the Directors will be allowed to expend for..." each section. And then the Board is recommending the amount the Business Manager and the Interim Superintendent worked up. I personally do not believe any group of voters in the collective towns of Clifton, Eddington and Holden are capable of defining any specific amount for any of the identified sections. AND, I have no doubt at all that the Business Manager will adamantly argue/defend the amount in the Proposed Budget.
I do not think that is our problem.
I think, if the Moderator would allow, we should attempt to START the discussion at the conclusion, if you will, by addressing Article 16 FIRST. Article 16 is where the sum total of the Proposed Budget is listed - $9,474,920 (which is $229,053 more than the budget was for 2008-2009). Then we, the voters, can recommend the Directors be allowed to expend no more than $9,248,961 for 2009-2010 (the same amount as was authorized for 2008-2009). We can state that it is up to the Directors to allocate that amount, but no more, throughout the sections as they decide and deem necessary. Period.
If that motion were made, seconded and passed, the meeting could end then and there.
Otherwise, I think the entire meeting would/will be a waste of time and we can either go home (or forget going at all). Either way, I think we should be sure to VOTE AGAINST the current Proposed Budget of $9,474,920 and VOTE that THAT AMOUNT IS TOO HIGH. You need to vote on BOTH ISSUES at the ballot - at your Town Office on June 9th.
We have people in all three towns who have lost their jobs, have lost hours, are loosing their health insurance, have homes in foreclosure because of job losses or reduced disability pay, are having a difficult time keeping food on the table for their families, wonder how they are going to pay for heating oil this coming winter or how they are going to clothe their children for school. They can hardly afford to have their rent go up because their landlords are going to have an increase in property taxes - or have property taxes go up themselves when they are barely getting by. In Clifton and Eddington there is a large contingent of retired people living on fixed incomes. Those living on Social Security are receiving ZERO cost of living increases this year AND next year.
Homestead Exemptions are being reduced and the State share back to local towns is also being reduced which is going to force towns to increase the Mill rate just to keep the towns running. Now we have a School Board that seems to think it doesn't need to pay any attention to this. Well it does! Board Directors were elected by these same people who are having the problems listed above. Board Directors need to be accountable to them no less than to the families with children in the schools and to be planning for the 2010-2011 fiscal year when the State is planning to cut another $70 million from education. It's time to get real, people. There is no more money.
How the School Board figures out a sum total of what the taxpayers can afford - what the economic times will enable the people to pay - is the Board's responsibility. And it's high time the Board started driving the train instead of being the caboose.
Why the Proposed Budget Format fails to provide the voters with the necessary information to "play by the rules" of the June 4th Vote.
In reality two different formats are used in the district to track budgeted and spent funds in the various categories listed in Annual (actual) and Proposed Budgets. The actual budget's Statement of Operations' expenditures are tracked by a contracted firm which documents how much money has been budgeted for the year (and spent monthly and year-to-date). The voters are not provided with this information. This information is only provided to the Board's Budget & Finance Committee and members of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
However, the information from the contracted firm did not correspond to the Proposed Budget when it was presented by the Business Manager when the Citizens' Advisory Budget & Finance Committee met in May. (And even that report was months late.) And one member's spread sheet showed close to $1,000,000 of unaccounted for money. No satisfactory explanation for this was received. Similar issues regarding the lack of comparative budgets were presented at the Public Hearing on May 13.
There is a more than capable computer system in the district's Central Office that could have provided more than adequate explanations for these issues - issues that would never existed if accountability and clarity had been a priority for the past five years. But here we are with a budget that has increased by over $600,000 in the past four years.
Bottom Line: If people are expected to believe the numbers are valid, the formats and reporting procedures should be consistent. Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Right now there's plenty of room for doubt.
Information only discussed at the School Board meetings (and not footnoted on the Proposed Budget) clearly indicate that some of the costs included in this Proposed Budget are either (1) one-time only costs, (2) were included in high school tuition costs based on factors that have now changed and therefore the costs are no longer valid, (3) merit increases or raises that other school districts or areas of employment have recognized need to be deferred during these economic times, and (4) include salaries that are seriously inflated. Last, but certainly not least, non-teaching contracts due to expire in 2010 should not be extended for three years (which will happen if this budget is approved) when the district may be consolidating thereby making these positions redundant (possible duplicates of other positions which may come with consolidation). The last thing we need is to be paying off long-term contracts for people we are no longer employing.
Now - according to the next to the last page of the mailing, entitled "Warrant for Annual Budget Meeting", the voters will be required to vote section by section "what sum the Directors will be allowed to expend for..." each section. And then the Board is recommending the amount the Business Manager and the Interim Superintendent worked up. I personally do not believe any group of voters in the collective towns of Clifton, Eddington and Holden are capable of defining any specific amount for any of the identified sections. AND, I have no doubt at all that the Business Manager will adamantly argue/defend the amount in the Proposed Budget.
I do not think that is our problem.
I think, if the Moderator would allow, we should attempt to START the discussion at the conclusion, if you will, by addressing Article 16 FIRST. Article 16 is where the sum total of the Proposed Budget is listed - $9,474,920 (which is $229,053 more than the budget was for 2008-2009). Then we, the voters, can recommend the Directors be allowed to expend no more than $9,248,961 for 2009-2010 (the same amount as was authorized for 2008-2009). We can state that it is up to the Directors to allocate that amount, but no more, throughout the sections as they decide and deem necessary. Period.
If that motion were made, seconded and passed, the meeting could end then and there.
Otherwise, I think the entire meeting would/will be a waste of time and we can either go home (or forget going at all). Either way, I think we should be sure to VOTE AGAINST the current Proposed Budget of $9,474,920 and VOTE that THAT AMOUNT IS TOO HIGH. You need to vote on BOTH ISSUES at the ballot - at your Town Office on June 9th.
We have people in all three towns who have lost their jobs, have lost hours, are loosing their health insurance, have homes in foreclosure because of job losses or reduced disability pay, are having a difficult time keeping food on the table for their families, wonder how they are going to pay for heating oil this coming winter or how they are going to clothe their children for school. They can hardly afford to have their rent go up because their landlords are going to have an increase in property taxes - or have property taxes go up themselves when they are barely getting by. In Clifton and Eddington there is a large contingent of retired people living on fixed incomes. Those living on Social Security are receiving ZERO cost of living increases this year AND next year.
Homestead Exemptions are being reduced and the State share back to local towns is also being reduced which is going to force towns to increase the Mill rate just to keep the towns running. Now we have a School Board that seems to think it doesn't need to pay any attention to this. Well it does! Board Directors were elected by these same people who are having the problems listed above. Board Directors need to be accountable to them no less than to the families with children in the schools and to be planning for the 2010-2011 fiscal year when the State is planning to cut another $70 million from education. It's time to get real, people. There is no more money.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Sign! - The Sign! :-)
Kudos to whoever at the Eddington Town Office has been responsible for getting up the notices for the Selectmen Meeting and the NEW date for the Planning Board Meeting on June 2! Way to Go (Russell, probably). When there's news of activities on the sign it makes our community look vital - active. Now all we need is people to start attending these meetings and participate! With the possibility of a FARMERS' MARKET COMING - we could be exciting. Be still my heart.
After the news I received this morning from a caller in Clifton about the affairs down there, it was enough to think the cockatil hour might need to start early. What is it about people who get elected to public office and then think they don't need to honor that public trust? Certainly doesn't sound like what the Founding Fathers and Mothers pledged their lives and all their worldly goods to fight for. There are days when I could just cry for what we seem to have become as citizens and yet, these are probably the same people who would stand up and rant and rave about illegal immigrants who would (and often do) give their lives to come to (and fight for) this country. SHAME on those elected officers who think they do not have a responsibility to communicate TO THE PEOPLE - BE ACCOUNTABLE to the people - RECOGNIZE the RIGHTS of the people who out them in office in the first place. It's not just God who giveith and taketh away. They just need to figure out who and where the bad apples are.
After the news I received this morning from a caller in Clifton about the affairs down there, it was enough to think the cockatil hour might need to start early. What is it about people who get elected to public office and then think they don't need to honor that public trust? Certainly doesn't sound like what the Founding Fathers and Mothers pledged their lives and all their worldly goods to fight for. There are days when I could just cry for what we seem to have become as citizens and yet, these are probably the same people who would stand up and rant and rave about illegal immigrants who would (and often do) give their lives to come to (and fight for) this country. SHAME on those elected officers who think they do not have a responsibility to communicate TO THE PEOPLE - BE ACCOUNTABLE to the people - RECOGNIZE the RIGHTS of the people who out them in office in the first place. It's not just God who giveith and taketh away. They just need to figure out who and where the bad apples are.
A True Story. Worth Reading and thinking about.
(Unfortunately the photos didn't come through - but - the narrative still tells the story well enough. And this is why it is so important for each one of us to pay attention to what our elected "representatives" are doing - in OUR names and with OUR permission. This is why YOUR vote counts - each and every time.)
True Warriors... B-17
Look carefully at the B-17 and note how shot up it is - one engine dead, tail, horizontal stabilizer and nose shot up.. It was ready to fall out of the sky. (This is a painting done by an artist from the description of both pilots many years later.) Then realize that there is a German ME-109 fighter flying next to it. Now read the story below. I think you'll be surprised.....
Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton , England . His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.
After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Steigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he 'had never seen a plane in such a bad state'. The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.
Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.
BF-109 pilot Franz Stigler B-17 pilot Charlie Brown.
Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England . He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe . When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remains of his crew told all at their briefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.
More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.
They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.
(L-R) German Ace Franz Stigler, artist Ernie Boyett, and B-17 pilot Charlie Brown.
When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute.
Both men died in 2008.
This is a true story
THIS WAS BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THERE WAS HONOR IN BEING A WARRIOR...THEY PROUDLY WORE UNIFORMS, AND THEY DIDN'T HIDE IN AMBUSH INSIDE A MOSQUE, OR BEHIND WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOR DID THEY USE MENTALLY RETARDED WOMEN AS SUICIDE BOMBERS TO TARGET AND KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS...HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED......
" The clock of life is wound but once; and no man
has the power to tell just when the hands will stop
at late or early hour. Now is the only time you own.
Live, love, toil with a will. Place no faith in time.
For the clock may soon be still".
True Warriors... B-17
Look carefully at the B-17 and note how shot up it is - one engine dead, tail, horizontal stabilizer and nose shot up.. It was ready to fall out of the sky. (This is a painting done by an artist from the description of both pilots many years later.) Then realize that there is a German ME-109 fighter flying next to it. Now read the story below. I think you'll be surprised.....
Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton , England . His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.
After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Steigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he 'had never seen a plane in such a bad state'. The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.
Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.
BF-109 pilot Franz Stigler B-17 pilot Charlie Brown.
Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England . He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe . When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remains of his crew told all at their briefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.
More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.
They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.
(L-R) German Ace Franz Stigler, artist Ernie Boyett, and B-17 pilot Charlie Brown.
When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute.
Both men died in 2008.
This is a true story
THIS WAS BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THERE WAS HONOR IN BEING A WARRIOR...THEY PROUDLY WORE UNIFORMS, AND THEY DIDN'T HIDE IN AMBUSH INSIDE A MOSQUE, OR BEHIND WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOR DID THEY USE MENTALLY RETARDED WOMEN AS SUICIDE BOMBERS TO TARGET AND KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS...HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED......
" The clock of life is wound but once; and no man
has the power to tell just when the hands will stop
at late or early hour. Now is the only time you own.
Live, love, toil with a will. Place no faith in time.
For the clock may soon be still".
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Eddington Planning Board Meeting - May 26
The meeting last night was postponed until next week - June 2 (@ 6:30pm). I appreciated the phone call from the Town Manager with the info in advance. Then I called others I knew had planned to attend in support of the gal who's spearheading the idea of a Farmers' Market in Eddington. Seems there's a lot of support for the project.
Also - THANKS to the phone calls from "reporters" filling me in on details touched on in the blog entries from last Saturday. I know there was a lot of info - seems there's more going on as I write. When the dust settles - and the details are finalized, I'll write what I can. Sometimes the info is on a somewhat confidential basis (people over-hearing things by being in the right place at the right time, or seeing things left out, etc.) which I feel bound to honor BUT, sooner or later, other folks (and authorities) will pick it up - or put the pieces together - and then the top will be off the pot of boiling water. And somebody's fingers will be burned.
Also - THANKS to the phone calls from "reporters" filling me in on details touched on in the blog entries from last Saturday. I know there was a lot of info - seems there's more going on as I write. When the dust settles - and the details are finalized, I'll write what I can. Sometimes the info is on a somewhat confidential basis (people over-hearing things by being in the right place at the right time, or seeing things left out, etc.) which I feel bound to honor BUT, sooner or later, other folks (and authorities) will pick it up - or put the pieces together - and then the top will be off the pot of boiling water. And somebody's fingers will be burned.
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Joint Was Jumpin'
Clewley's was one "hot spot" Saturday night with the Woody Woodman trio(?). Seemed like a full band with the big sounds throughout the place. It was packed! People were dancing, laughing, singing and toes were tapping. Lots of new faces. A big crowd showed up from Bangor - High Scholl grads from 1958 - in "uniforms" no less.
Only thing missing were enough waitresses because the drinks couldn't keep up with the orders - as fast as Bob was working the bar (and he was). But folks around our table would have ordered more - not to mention desert and coffee if there had been more people to take their orders. Not that the gals weren't hustling, but with the crowd, two people just aren't going to be enough if the popularity of these great Saturday night shows continue. Hope to see and hear more of Woody soon. And Dola has her regular crowd, too. What with the future plans for the place, Clewley's should be one of Eddington's highlights in no time at all - and won't that be great for all. Good job, guys.
Next Saturday night, May 30th, will be the 6th Annual Talent Show at the Cumins Hall - 7pm - the one and only show! Tickets will be $5.00 for adults and $1.00 for the children. Refreshments will be available as usual. I'm hearing the Talent will be even better than last year. I'm hearing the proceeds will be going toward the on-going improvements at the Hall. Should be a good time for all.
Only thing missing were enough waitresses because the drinks couldn't keep up with the orders - as fast as Bob was working the bar (and he was). But folks around our table would have ordered more - not to mention desert and coffee if there had been more people to take their orders. Not that the gals weren't hustling, but with the crowd, two people just aren't going to be enough if the popularity of these great Saturday night shows continue. Hope to see and hear more of Woody soon. And Dola has her regular crowd, too. What with the future plans for the place, Clewley's should be one of Eddington's highlights in no time at all - and won't that be great for all. Good job, guys.
Next Saturday night, May 30th, will be the 6th Annual Talent Show at the Cumins Hall - 7pm - the one and only show! Tickets will be $5.00 for adults and $1.00 for the children. Refreshments will be available as usual. I'm hearing the Talent will be even better than last year. I'm hearing the proceeds will be going toward the on-going improvements at the Hall. Should be a good time for all.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Leaders, Influence, Power, Integrity & Accountability
There are leaders of countries ranging in size from the huge (like China) to the very small (like Tibet). Some lead through sheer power - force, maybe even through fear combined with power and force. Others lead through integrity - the force of what is right even against tremendous adversity created through the force and fear of larger powers.
Some people are elected to positions of leadership; others are appointed. Some fulfill the duties and responsibilities of those positions honorable. Others fail - some through no fault of their own; others because they forgot their duty to the people who entrusted them to be honorable with the authority that comes with the position of leadership.
Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (I think he probably would have included good women, too.) There are various shades of evil, just as there are various gradations in the progression from white to black - from red to pink. Check out the paint colors at Lowe's or Home Depot if you doubt that statement. So it is realitively easy to slip from one shade to the next, especially if distracted or constantly feeling beaten down by surrounding forces or factors. And that's how Integrity is lost and shades of evil succeed.
Here in Maine we celebrate Josuha Chamberlain. Right here we have a statue of him up on the bluff before going across the (old, now new) bridge under construction into Bangor. We have the other bridge named for him near the Muddy Rudder restaurant. We even have a County named for him. Josuha Chamberlain was a leader of influence and integrity who felt accountability. He was also a teacher, born in Brewer, Maine, who taught, at one time or another, every course at Bowdoin College. On this Memorial Day (Rememberance Day) we should remember he is also credited with saving the battle of Gettysburg for the Union, leading his men to continue to fight when they had no more bullets for their guns with such committment through an on-going battle that they drove the Confederate soldiers from what would have been a certain victory.
He was not a petty man. His actions were not for his own personal gain - nor for any desire for any acquisition of personal power, neither on the battlefield nor in the classroom. He simply had a sense of doing what was right for his students, for the men who served under him and looked to him for leadership and direction, to serve his state honorably and to preserve the union. And his men, respecting his leadership and integrity, followed him.
So now here we are today - with people who, while having the benefits of those men's sacrifices, have forgotten the standards of what it takes to keep this country strong against division and diversion. We have been a mighty nation, but right here in our own towns (Eddington, Clifton and Holden) we are a collection of good men and women who (for the most part) do nothing. No one attends local Selectmen's meetings to hold accountable those in the seats of power of government. No one (except for three or four people out of all three towns) attends School Board meetings to hold the Board or Interim Superintendent accountable. Less than thirty people (other than five Board members and the Interim Superintendent) attended the Public Meeting to review the proposed school budget for next year to hold the Business Manager or Board accountable. I am not saying these elected men and women are evil. I am saying that even after being elected, it is the responsibility of the voters - WE THE PEOPLE - to monitor our government's actions and for us to be informed, especially when we are being impacted by the actions of those elected bodies - and paying for their actions.
For those individuals who will show up June 4 at the Holbrook School at 7pm to vote (with a show of hands) or June 9th at their Town Offices to vote by paper ballot - the vast majority will not even know what is in the budget. Those who will show up on June 4th will be mostly the teachers and district employees who will vote to get whatever money they think they should have in their pockets (including contract extensions and pay raises even while taxpayers are loosing their jobs and homes) and parents who only think they need to vote for the budget to ensure their children's educations - not realizing how much of the budget is unaccounted for.
For those individuals who will show up June 9, very few will have even picked up copies at their Town Offices of the proposed budget - much less been able to understand it because that's the way the Business Manager has written it (without footnotes or explanations - especially regarding salaries and benefits for Central Office personnel).
And the School Board and Interim Superintendent has allowed this - permitted this - endorsed this. So, where is the leadership? Who has the influence - the taxpayer or the School Board or the Interim Superintendent or the Business Manager? Where is the Power? It should be with the taxpayer voters but it won't be if they don't become informed and Vote. And last but not least - Where is the Integrity and Accountability of the School Board? We will see when it is time for each one of them to show their individual votes on June 4. Maybe that alone is reason for the people of Clifton, Eddington and Holbrook to attend that meeting because there are plenty of reasons to vote NO on this budget. (Need to know those reasons? Read previous blogs posted today or during previous weeks.)
Some people are elected to positions of leadership; others are appointed. Some fulfill the duties and responsibilities of those positions honorable. Others fail - some through no fault of their own; others because they forgot their duty to the people who entrusted them to be honorable with the authority that comes with the position of leadership.
Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (I think he probably would have included good women, too.) There are various shades of evil, just as there are various gradations in the progression from white to black - from red to pink. Check out the paint colors at Lowe's or Home Depot if you doubt that statement. So it is realitively easy to slip from one shade to the next, especially if distracted or constantly feeling beaten down by surrounding forces or factors. And that's how Integrity is lost and shades of evil succeed.
Here in Maine we celebrate Josuha Chamberlain. Right here we have a statue of him up on the bluff before going across the (old, now new) bridge under construction into Bangor. We have the other bridge named for him near the Muddy Rudder restaurant. We even have a County named for him. Josuha Chamberlain was a leader of influence and integrity who felt accountability. He was also a teacher, born in Brewer, Maine, who taught, at one time or another, every course at Bowdoin College. On this Memorial Day (Rememberance Day) we should remember he is also credited with saving the battle of Gettysburg for the Union, leading his men to continue to fight when they had no more bullets for their guns with such committment through an on-going battle that they drove the Confederate soldiers from what would have been a certain victory.
He was not a petty man. His actions were not for his own personal gain - nor for any desire for any acquisition of personal power, neither on the battlefield nor in the classroom. He simply had a sense of doing what was right for his students, for the men who served under him and looked to him for leadership and direction, to serve his state honorably and to preserve the union. And his men, respecting his leadership and integrity, followed him.
So now here we are today - with people who, while having the benefits of those men's sacrifices, have forgotten the standards of what it takes to keep this country strong against division and diversion. We have been a mighty nation, but right here in our own towns (Eddington, Clifton and Holden) we are a collection of good men and women who (for the most part) do nothing. No one attends local Selectmen's meetings to hold accountable those in the seats of power of government. No one (except for three or four people out of all three towns) attends School Board meetings to hold the Board or Interim Superintendent accountable. Less than thirty people (other than five Board members and the Interim Superintendent) attended the Public Meeting to review the proposed school budget for next year to hold the Business Manager or Board accountable. I am not saying these elected men and women are evil. I am saying that even after being elected, it is the responsibility of the voters - WE THE PEOPLE - to monitor our government's actions and for us to be informed, especially when we are being impacted by the actions of those elected bodies - and paying for their actions.
For those individuals who will show up June 4 at the Holbrook School at 7pm to vote (with a show of hands) or June 9th at their Town Offices to vote by paper ballot - the vast majority will not even know what is in the budget. Those who will show up on June 4th will be mostly the teachers and district employees who will vote to get whatever money they think they should have in their pockets (including contract extensions and pay raises even while taxpayers are loosing their jobs and homes) and parents who only think they need to vote for the budget to ensure their children's educations - not realizing how much of the budget is unaccounted for.
For those individuals who will show up June 9, very few will have even picked up copies at their Town Offices of the proposed budget - much less been able to understand it because that's the way the Business Manager has written it (without footnotes or explanations - especially regarding salaries and benefits for Central Office personnel).
And the School Board and Interim Superintendent has allowed this - permitted this - endorsed this. So, where is the leadership? Who has the influence - the taxpayer or the School Board or the Interim Superintendent or the Business Manager? Where is the Power? It should be with the taxpayer voters but it won't be if they don't become informed and Vote. And last but not least - Where is the Integrity and Accountability of the School Board? We will see when it is time for each one of them to show their individual votes on June 4. Maybe that alone is reason for the people of Clifton, Eddington and Holbrook to attend that meeting because there are plenty of reasons to vote NO on this budget. (Need to know those reasons? Read previous blogs posted today or during previous weeks.)
Eddington Selectmen's Meeting - May 19
Craig Russell graduated from college and will intern at the Firehouse this summer. Everyone commented on how fast his college years have passed.
The Town Manager confirmed that IF the proposed School Budget passes June 9 (voting from 8am - 8pm at the Town Office) the mill rate will be increased by 1 resulting in an additional $100.00 per $100,000. of property value. It seems that (?) has determined that Eddington property values have increased. Don't ask me how that happened seeing how many homes have been up for sale for so long with nothing apparently happening. Seems if just one property sells and there's any good sale price, we are all assumed to be living in a "higher priced spread."
Clewley Farm Restaurant petitioned for, and received, it's renewed liquor license for the restaurant bar. And Saturday night it will be Woody Woodman and his group (drums, keyboard, saxaphone and ... for music and vocals). Show should be starting at 7pm. Should be a good show and a full house.
Perhaps the most exciting news was a presentation by Lore Lipkvick, a cheesemaker, who wanted to talk about starting a Farmers Market in Eddington. She had talked with several potential fresh vegetable vendors - is looking for a BAKER and seafood vendor, flowers, fruits, etc. The idea is for the Farmers Market to serve Clifton, Holden, Auroa, Great Pond, Bradley, and ??? Everyone was excited. She'll be addressing the Eddington Planning Board this coming Tuesday for anyone who wants more info or to be able to talk with her. I won't mention who said she should be talking to Susan Shane (who knows everybody who could help - but his initials are ....;-)
It was a good meeting with a lot of optimism considering the idea of a Farmers Market that would become an Annual Happening on Sundays (only) from about 10am to 2-3pm. More details at the Planning Board meeting.
The Town Manager confirmed that IF the proposed School Budget passes June 9 (voting from 8am - 8pm at the Town Office) the mill rate will be increased by 1 resulting in an additional $100.00 per $100,000. of property value. It seems that (?) has determined that Eddington property values have increased. Don't ask me how that happened seeing how many homes have been up for sale for so long with nothing apparently happening. Seems if just one property sells and there's any good sale price, we are all assumed to be living in a "higher priced spread."
Clewley Farm Restaurant petitioned for, and received, it's renewed liquor license for the restaurant bar. And Saturday night it will be Woody Woodman and his group (drums, keyboard, saxaphone and ... for music and vocals). Show should be starting at 7pm. Should be a good show and a full house.
Perhaps the most exciting news was a presentation by Lore Lipkvick, a cheesemaker, who wanted to talk about starting a Farmers Market in Eddington. She had talked with several potential fresh vegetable vendors - is looking for a BAKER and seafood vendor, flowers, fruits, etc. The idea is for the Farmers Market to serve Clifton, Holden, Auroa, Great Pond, Bradley, and ??? Everyone was excited. She'll be addressing the Eddington Planning Board this coming Tuesday for anyone who wants more info or to be able to talk with her. I won't mention who said she should be talking to Susan Shane (who knows everybody who could help - but his initials are ....;-)
It was a good meeting with a lot of optimism considering the idea of a Farmers Market that would become an Annual Happening on Sundays (only) from about 10am to 2-3pm. More details at the Planning Board meeting.
Out and About Town This Past Week
Flags are flying from telephone poles just in time for this Rememberance holiday. Did you know that was the original name for what we now know as Memorial Day? Rememberance Day - in honor of and rememberance of all those service men and women in all five branches (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard) who have served and defended us - our country - protected us and our freedoms, often at the very cost of their lives since the original colonists declared WE, THE PEOPLE. In return for their sacrifices - not just their lives but their sacrifices while serving - the pain, the conditions of war, the terror, the day in and day out deprivation of conditions (mud, freezing cold, the lack of food, water, medical supplies or care) - WE THE PEOPLE owe them - our respect, our appreciation, our commitment to honor those sacrifices. So I hope somehow WE THE PEOPLE will stop and actually see those flags and think what they represent. A lot of blood has been shed for over 200 years so that they can still wave right here at home.
The show tonight at the Clewley Farm Restaurant with Woody Woodman is expected to be so popular that some folks are calling in to make reservations. Hearing that yesterday, I made mine. According to Bob and Lonnie, we can expect a keyboard, drums, Woody on his saxaphone and on the vocals, Dea on the vocals and who knows what else. There'll be jazz and some oldies - some of the "good stuff" as I call it. They sent me home with one of Woody's CDs so I'd know what I could tell you to expect.
A mighty fine Lobster Roll can be found at Pete's Pretty Good ice Cream on IA in Holden (just before Hummingbird Hollow - just west of Highway 46 traveling down from Brewer through Holden if you're new to the area). Pete's is on the left - a drive in spot with plenty of parking. For $8.99, the price can't be beat. They're not stingy with the lobster meat either. Traditional with just mayonaise in a grilled hot dog bun with just a little lettuce (for the crunch, donchaknow), it's perfect and filling. As for the ice cream... The good news is that it's not Hoods. It you've been following, you know why I'm boycotting Hood products. If you don't know - screen back a few blogs to the article re: the Best Strawberry Ice Cream - which is STILL THE BEST, BTW. To be fair, I tested Pete's strawberry - not even close to Sugar Maple Creamery's found at Clewley's which is chock full of strawberries and the right color to be strawberry.
The heroes at the Monday night School Board meeting were all from Eddingon.
Ralph Russell, former School Superintendent, is the Eddington Delegate to the Citizens' Advisory Budget and Finance Committee (and Chair). He pointed out to the members of the Board that in their (end of the evening) scheduled Executive Session it was noted they would be discussing employment and evaluations (which means raises and contracts for those employees who have them in the district, such as the school principals, the operations/maintenance supervisor, and the business manager, etc.). Ralph pointed out that should the district vote to consolidate (at some point following the November general election), Central Office positions are a primary area targeted for consolidation. Therefore, any existing contracts that are slated to expire in 2010 should not be extended for multiple years since that could put the district in a position of having to pay for an individual's contract past their employment in a new consolidated RSU. (Remember the situation we would have been in with Ms. Regan if we had consolidated with Brewer and things had been "normal".) Wise counsel from a former superintendent and current advisor. (Not that the School Board appears to have taken it when it came to the Business Manager whose contract WAS slated to expire 6/30/09 BUT will continue for another three years IF the proposed budget is approved!) In light of the stated opinion by the current Interim Superintendent, Mr. Hart, that he believes the people of the State of Maine will vote to mandate consolidation this was all the more shocking.
Therese Anderson and Karen Clark, both Eddington School Board reps, thought it would be wise to have a document read in toto before the Board signed it after Mr. Hart presented as his "short and sweet" Superintendent's report. Seems the Town Manager of Fairfield had sent out a petition requesting the School Board to support placing LD285 on emergency status in the State Legislature (the legislative Finance committee had given it a "No" vote). The effect of LD285 would delay the collections for two years the penalties being assessed for those school districts that failed to consolidate this past year. The rationale for the delay was this would reduce the property tax burdens being placed on towns and any subsequent of cutting of services. Sounded like good reasons to sign the petition as Mr. Hart presented his summary. BUT, Karen felt the Board should read the actual petition before deciding whether or not to sign it. (Seems Mr. Hart had had the petition for over a week and could have had it included in the Board members packets so that the members could have read it in preparation of the meeting.) After Robert Kiah, rep from Holden, read the document aloud so that all Board members could hear it, Therese questioned whether LD285 meant the penalties would be accruing (meaning adding up) for the two years and then become due (which would mean a $326,000 bill to SAD63 in two years) or whether it meant the State would not start assessing the penalties until 2011 (which is when the current Governor plans to have the State cut another $70 million from state funding to schools). Since the petition was unclear (and frankly I don't think either option was beneficial to the school districts), the Board voted to take no action leaving the matter where individuals could write letters to Senator Rosen or House Rep. Pratt if they so chose.
But for Therese and Karen, I have no doubt that the Board would have followed Mr. Hart's "short and sweet" (but not well thought through) suggestion that they sign the petition which would not have been in the district taxpayers' welfare.
That's not to say that the rest of the School Board meeting was commendary. I find it amazing to see so many Board committees not conducting any meetings.
Why, with two teachers on it, has the Curriculum Committee not met in (what?) a year?
If the people of the state (or the Legislature) mandate school consolidation after November's election, shouldn't this district be ready with a plan? And yet this School Board's RSU committee consistently fails to set any committee meeting date. (Brewer certainly had an alternative plan because they went right ahead with their "Plan B" and got it approved - to consolidate with Orrington - right after the other plan failed.)
When does the Operations Committee plan to meet?
At least the Technology Committee has an excuse - it is out for the summer and George Cummings, the technology coordinator ran a workshop this past Friday at the Eddingtton School. BTW, Mr. Cummings consistently receives high praise from everyone.
Why was there no report from the Director of Pupil Services? Especially from the Director of Special Ed considering 17% of the student population are Special Ed/Special Needs according to Mr. Hart's office (and costing over $1 million of the school budget). BTW, a parent from Clifton recently called me to state that she can never get anyone from her child's school to actually talk to her (human being to human being) re: her child. The parent is constantly told to send email messages (which the parent states are always returned - but that's not the point. It's the human contact people need. The parent believes it's because the teachers just want to go home and not be available. Well, if we're going to be totally computer communications, maybe we should just contract with Microsoft and Google and forget about teacher contracts. Especially when it comes to the Secial Ed/Special Needs programs.
At least this month all Board members were in attendance. It was the last meeting for Robert Kiah from Holden who will be replaced next month by Kevin Mills, the newly elected Rep. A new face - an independent mind. Maybe he would be a good candidate for Board Chair. Someone objective. As least that might be the perception (to use one of Ms. Ellis's words.) I recall one of my supervisor's training classes built on the truism: "Perception is Reality."
New policies were adopted - for Fiscal Accounting and Reporting, and for payment Procedures. Additionally we, the public, found out that SAD63 will be contributing $10,780. on a one-time basis to UTC to help cover a financial error that occured last year but was not discovered until this year. All school districts that send students to UTC will be contributing to address this error on a fixed percentage basis. When I asked if this $10,780 was already in the proposed SAD63 2009-2010 budget, I was told it was. Funny how that was not explained or noted at the may 16 meeting. We should be sure to remember it is not a figure to be rolled over and added to next year.
The teachers' union has sent its 120 day notice pertaining to its contracts which expire in August 2010. This means negotiations will need to begin at some point down the line. Just another reason why the RSU Committee should be meeting!
Last but not least - the cost of the on-going lawsuit re: the former superintendent. I waited through the entire agenda to see if I would hear any kind of explanation for why the current Chair, Mr. Varnum, told the public at the May 13 meeting that the lawsuit has cost $160,000. to date. His "Chair's Report" was practically non-existent. So before the Board went into its last Executive Session (re: Disciplining, duties, employment, contracts, etc. see above), there were "Questions and Comments from the Public" - and I had 3 questions (sufficient to give Ms. Ellis a religious experience and make Ms. Mitchell defensive - as always).
I pointed out that even the Bangor Daily News has printed (and the April School Board had reported) bills had been received in the amount of $219,750.87. That was certainly more than $160,000. so how could he give such misinformation. Again, we received the standard "apology" from Mr. Varnum which has become old news. He then reported that, since the April Board, during which it was reported that the insurance policy had paid $61,345.10, the insurance policy has now paid $94,392.70. (One has to wonder why that was not in the Chair's report in the first place - as though we taxpayers aren't interested/entitled to that information. We're the ones who will have to pay the bill one way of another.)
And speaking of lawsuits - why is the Board tolerating the refusal of the Business Manager to provide the requested documentation showing whether or not federal and state taxes, as well as F.I.C.A. deductions were paid out of the bonuses she received for the past four or five (?) years as an employee of the school district. Perhaps there is a Conflict of Interest that the Interim Superintendent is providing the Business Manager's job evaluation considering he's only on the job not much more than one day or two (at the most) each week, not to mention that he hired her boss (the former superintendent) who insisted on the hiring of the current Business Manager. Talk about a nexus. The bonus clause should never have been allowed in the first place (and it seems the Board, as a whole, never did approve it). The taxes and F.I.C.A. are legal requirements (funny that only the Business Manager is thought to be able to provide the info. How about the contracted payroll services or what the bonus check an "under the table" gratuity?) There is a Freedom of Information Act and, if need be, perhaps we need to take this issue to a higher level before the IRS and other legal authorities decide to take legal action against SAD63 just because the Board has an employee who doesn't seem to think she has to answer to her employee. Could it be she thinks she has a Godfather? And maybe the Board needs some backbone - unless it wants to deal with the IRS and the State of Maine.
The show tonight at the Clewley Farm Restaurant with Woody Woodman is expected to be so popular that some folks are calling in to make reservations. Hearing that yesterday, I made mine. According to Bob and Lonnie, we can expect a keyboard, drums, Woody on his saxaphone and on the vocals, Dea on the vocals and who knows what else. There'll be jazz and some oldies - some of the "good stuff" as I call it. They sent me home with one of Woody's CDs so I'd know what I could tell you to expect.
A mighty fine Lobster Roll can be found at Pete's Pretty Good ice Cream on IA in Holden (just before Hummingbird Hollow - just west of Highway 46 traveling down from Brewer through Holden if you're new to the area). Pete's is on the left - a drive in spot with plenty of parking. For $8.99, the price can't be beat. They're not stingy with the lobster meat either. Traditional with just mayonaise in a grilled hot dog bun with just a little lettuce (for the crunch, donchaknow), it's perfect and filling. As for the ice cream... The good news is that it's not Hoods. It you've been following, you know why I'm boycotting Hood products. If you don't know - screen back a few blogs to the article re: the Best Strawberry Ice Cream - which is STILL THE BEST, BTW. To be fair, I tested Pete's strawberry - not even close to Sugar Maple Creamery's found at Clewley's which is chock full of strawberries and the right color to be strawberry.
The heroes at the Monday night School Board meeting were all from Eddingon.
Ralph Russell, former School Superintendent, is the Eddington Delegate to the Citizens' Advisory Budget and Finance Committee (and Chair). He pointed out to the members of the Board that in their (end of the evening) scheduled Executive Session it was noted they would be discussing employment and evaluations (which means raises and contracts for those employees who have them in the district, such as the school principals, the operations/maintenance supervisor, and the business manager, etc.). Ralph pointed out that should the district vote to consolidate (at some point following the November general election), Central Office positions are a primary area targeted for consolidation. Therefore, any existing contracts that are slated to expire in 2010 should not be extended for multiple years since that could put the district in a position of having to pay for an individual's contract past their employment in a new consolidated RSU. (Remember the situation we would have been in with Ms. Regan if we had consolidated with Brewer and things had been "normal".) Wise counsel from a former superintendent and current advisor. (Not that the School Board appears to have taken it when it came to the Business Manager whose contract WAS slated to expire 6/30/09 BUT will continue for another three years IF the proposed budget is approved!) In light of the stated opinion by the current Interim Superintendent, Mr. Hart, that he believes the people of the State of Maine will vote to mandate consolidation this was all the more shocking.
Therese Anderson and Karen Clark, both Eddington School Board reps, thought it would be wise to have a document read in toto before the Board signed it after Mr. Hart presented as his "short and sweet" Superintendent's report. Seems the Town Manager of Fairfield had sent out a petition requesting the School Board to support placing LD285 on emergency status in the State Legislature (the legislative Finance committee had given it a "No" vote). The effect of LD285 would delay the collections for two years the penalties being assessed for those school districts that failed to consolidate this past year. The rationale for the delay was this would reduce the property tax burdens being placed on towns and any subsequent of cutting of services. Sounded like good reasons to sign the petition as Mr. Hart presented his summary. BUT, Karen felt the Board should read the actual petition before deciding whether or not to sign it. (Seems Mr. Hart had had the petition for over a week and could have had it included in the Board members packets so that the members could have read it in preparation of the meeting.) After Robert Kiah, rep from Holden, read the document aloud so that all Board members could hear it, Therese questioned whether LD285 meant the penalties would be accruing (meaning adding up) for the two years and then become due (which would mean a $326,000 bill to SAD63 in two years) or whether it meant the State would not start assessing the penalties until 2011 (which is when the current Governor plans to have the State cut another $70 million from state funding to schools). Since the petition was unclear (and frankly I don't think either option was beneficial to the school districts), the Board voted to take no action leaving the matter where individuals could write letters to Senator Rosen or House Rep. Pratt if they so chose.
But for Therese and Karen, I have no doubt that the Board would have followed Mr. Hart's "short and sweet" (but not well thought through) suggestion that they sign the petition which would not have been in the district taxpayers' welfare.
That's not to say that the rest of the School Board meeting was commendary. I find it amazing to see so many Board committees not conducting any meetings.
Why, with two teachers on it, has the Curriculum Committee not met in (what?) a year?
If the people of the state (or the Legislature) mandate school consolidation after November's election, shouldn't this district be ready with a plan? And yet this School Board's RSU committee consistently fails to set any committee meeting date. (Brewer certainly had an alternative plan because they went right ahead with their "Plan B" and got it approved - to consolidate with Orrington - right after the other plan failed.)
When does the Operations Committee plan to meet?
At least the Technology Committee has an excuse - it is out for the summer and George Cummings, the technology coordinator ran a workshop this past Friday at the Eddingtton School. BTW, Mr. Cummings consistently receives high praise from everyone.
Why was there no report from the Director of Pupil Services? Especially from the Director of Special Ed considering 17% of the student population are Special Ed/Special Needs according to Mr. Hart's office (and costing over $1 million of the school budget). BTW, a parent from Clifton recently called me to state that she can never get anyone from her child's school to actually talk to her (human being to human being) re: her child. The parent is constantly told to send email messages (which the parent states are always returned - but that's not the point. It's the human contact people need. The parent believes it's because the teachers just want to go home and not be available. Well, if we're going to be totally computer communications, maybe we should just contract with Microsoft and Google and forget about teacher contracts. Especially when it comes to the Secial Ed/Special Needs programs.
At least this month all Board members were in attendance. It was the last meeting for Robert Kiah from Holden who will be replaced next month by Kevin Mills, the newly elected Rep. A new face - an independent mind. Maybe he would be a good candidate for Board Chair. Someone objective. As least that might be the perception (to use one of Ms. Ellis's words.) I recall one of my supervisor's training classes built on the truism: "Perception is Reality."
New policies were adopted - for Fiscal Accounting and Reporting, and for payment Procedures. Additionally we, the public, found out that SAD63 will be contributing $10,780. on a one-time basis to UTC to help cover a financial error that occured last year but was not discovered until this year. All school districts that send students to UTC will be contributing to address this error on a fixed percentage basis. When I asked if this $10,780 was already in the proposed SAD63 2009-2010 budget, I was told it was. Funny how that was not explained or noted at the may 16 meeting. We should be sure to remember it is not a figure to be rolled over and added to next year.
The teachers' union has sent its 120 day notice pertaining to its contracts which expire in August 2010. This means negotiations will need to begin at some point down the line. Just another reason why the RSU Committee should be meeting!
Last but not least - the cost of the on-going lawsuit re: the former superintendent. I waited through the entire agenda to see if I would hear any kind of explanation for why the current Chair, Mr. Varnum, told the public at the May 13 meeting that the lawsuit has cost $160,000. to date. His "Chair's Report" was practically non-existent. So before the Board went into its last Executive Session (re: Disciplining, duties, employment, contracts, etc. see above), there were "Questions and Comments from the Public" - and I had 3 questions (sufficient to give Ms. Ellis a religious experience and make Ms. Mitchell defensive - as always).
I pointed out that even the Bangor Daily News has printed (and the April School Board had reported) bills had been received in the amount of $219,750.87. That was certainly more than $160,000. so how could he give such misinformation. Again, we received the standard "apology" from Mr. Varnum which has become old news. He then reported that, since the April Board, during which it was reported that the insurance policy had paid $61,345.10, the insurance policy has now paid $94,392.70. (One has to wonder why that was not in the Chair's report in the first place - as though we taxpayers aren't interested/entitled to that information. We're the ones who will have to pay the bill one way of another.)
And speaking of lawsuits - why is the Board tolerating the refusal of the Business Manager to provide the requested documentation showing whether or not federal and state taxes, as well as F.I.C.A. deductions were paid out of the bonuses she received for the past four or five (?) years as an employee of the school district. Perhaps there is a Conflict of Interest that the Interim Superintendent is providing the Business Manager's job evaluation considering he's only on the job not much more than one day or two (at the most) each week, not to mention that he hired her boss (the former superintendent) who insisted on the hiring of the current Business Manager. Talk about a nexus. The bonus clause should never have been allowed in the first place (and it seems the Board, as a whole, never did approve it). The taxes and F.I.C.A. are legal requirements (funny that only the Business Manager is thought to be able to provide the info. How about the contracted payroll services or what the bonus check an "under the table" gratuity?) There is a Freedom of Information Act and, if need be, perhaps we need to take this issue to a higher level before the IRS and other legal authorities decide to take legal action against SAD63 just because the Board has an employee who doesn't seem to think she has to answer to her employee. Could it be she thinks she has a Godfather? And maybe the Board needs some backbone - unless it wants to deal with the IRS and the State of Maine.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The U.S. District Court Decision re: SAD63 lawsuit
Because I know you don't want to read every word of the 37 page decision (how much time do you really have, people?) and because I'm pretty sure the reference cases cited by the opposing attorneys and the judge probably wouldn't mean all that much to you, I'm going to synopsize the decision.
To begin, you need to know that the initial request was filed by SAD63 for a Summary Judgement against the claims Regan's had filed (in violation of her Constitutional rights) via the Federal Court system (and then tacked on her Maine Court claims as well). According to the U.S. District Court, "Summary Judgment 'should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Bottom Line: In essence the judge is saying ...If , in this case, the Plaintiff has shown enough via the evidence and relationship to precendent law to conclude that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff then a Summary Judgement should not be rendered - BUT if the Defendant can show that there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff 's claim to believe a reasonable jury would render a verdict in support of the Plaintiff's claim, then the judge should render a Summary Judgment - which means to throw out the Plaintiff's claim.
First you need to understand that Regan, the former superintendent and the plaintiff in this lawsuit, made ONE basic claim (with some "stringers") that is a Constitutional law issue and therefore an issue to be determined at the United States District Court level. Regan also made several additional claims that come under Maine state law jurisdiction.
I'm going to present the issues here in the same order (Federal Court first and Maine Court Second).
Regan's one basic claim that is a Constitutional law issue is her allegation that the SAD63 School Board "acting under color of state law, violated her federal due process, privacy, free speech, and equal protection rights." She makes this claim because with respect to the "due process" component, she was deprived her rights in property via continued employment and her liberty via her reputation. (Under this flag of Constitutional law, Regan is claiming she was fired illegally - without the proper procedures being met, was denied Due Process and thereby denied her rights and liberty under the law.)
Part of Regan's argument is that she had been hired by a joint board consisting of SAD63 and CSD8 (Consolidated School District 8 comprised of the towns of Aurora, Osborn, Amherst and Great Pond) and, as such, could only be terminated by the same joint board. Since the termination action in question was committed solely by SAD63, Regan's position is that it is illegal.
The Defendants (SAD63) position is that there was no official "joint board" and that the arrangement was only a cost-savings arrangement. The SAD63 Board further states Regan had a predeprivation due process (which means the First Step in a Two-Step due process precedure - my explanation) in which all due process rights were respected. The Defendants argue that Regan fails (in the arguments before the District Court) to adequately plead anything else in support of her claim (that her Constitutional rights were violated).
The District Court judge reviewed the requirements of the applicable law (Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act) and decided that the question was: "whether Regan received, or stands to receive sufficient process from the State of Maine." The judge determined, after wading through several precedent cases, that "Before a tenured public employee is discharged, she is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against her, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present her side of the story." "These are the 'minimum procedural requirements' that must be afforded as a matter of federal law."
Now, I will tell you that Regan (through her attorney) went on extensively to allege that there were more reasons (the "stringers") behind SAD63's termination of Regan's employment which Regan alleges she was not officially noticed, but the judge gave this allegation no merit. The judge found that the investigative findings provided by SAD63's attorney (Wade) on May 12, 2008 to Regan with a list of the grounds being considered sufficient to justify the termination proceedings.
The judge also found the termination hearings afforded Regan followed Wade's findings and notification to Regan sufficient to meet the predeprivation requirements of the law. Regan was afforded opportunities to present her side of the story (both orally and in writing) at meetings on both July 18 and 29 prior to the Board's vote that called for her termination. All of the extraneous issues Regan tried to inject re: additional reasons various members of the Board used (to terminate her) but had not "noticed" her, were addressed by the judge and dismissed as issues which the judge said Regan should have expected. The judge further stated "All of this litigious conduct commenced following the October 22,2007, board meeting and there can be no doubt that Regan fully understood the correlation between the issue of the tape recordings and her institution of charges against the Board. Regan must have understood at the time that her commencement of legal proceedings against the SAD63 Board and a majority of its members was something that could galvanize the nascent movement against her continued employment, whether it actually did or not."
The judge explained that her sole reason for conducting the May 7, 2009 limited oral argument "was out of concern that the parties (Regan and SAD63) were overlooking legal authority (available via postdeprivation proceedings that could cure any alleged shortcomings in the predeprivation process). The judge's issue here was that, if Regan's position was correct that the CSD8 Board needed to be a party to the termination consideration/procedure in order for the termination to be legal or if the SAD63 Board was so biased against Regan as to have prevented her from receiving adequate due process at the predeprivation, was there adequate protection for Regan via the postdeprivation process to afford her the required due process?
Conclusion: After all of the arguments were heard and all of the legal precedent cases were thoroughly reviewed, the Judge Ruled: (1) Regan was given notice of the causes the SAD63 was considering for termination via the written investigative report on May 12, 2008, (2) the (U.S.) Supreme Court held (in a precedent case) that "the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions" in a due process tribunal does not build an unconstitutional, structural bias into administrative, due process proceedings, (3) "in the instant case, the ultimate decisionmaker is the Commissioner of Education, who did not preside over the underlying investigation and discharge proceeding." And "state law provides the Commissioner with the authority to afford a discharged superintendent with a full-blown postdeprivation administrative hearing." Therefore, the judge concluded Regan had failed to "demonstrate that the State of Maine will not afford her an adequate postdeprivation administrative hearing before the Commissioner and all appearances are to the contrary. (emphasis added by me). "The statute that governs the discharge of superintendents flatly provides for an appeal before the Commissioner of Education and, moreover, provides that the Commissioner 'shall (that wording is usually indicative of a mandate - my wording here) hold a hearing as part of the appeal'." "This hearing should ensure that the (SAD63's) Board's determination of disputed issues of fact and discipline will not be the ultimate determination. Under all of the available precedent discussed (within this decision), even if there exists sufficient evience to support a finding that SAD63's decision was poisoned by personal bias on certain board members, a postdepreivation administrative hearing in which the Commissioner makes de novo (meaning - once more) findings on disputed factual matters and discipline will satisfy due process requirements. I therefore recommend that the Court grant the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment against (Regan's claim of Constitutional violation of due process) so that, hopefully, the state process can run its course without much further ado."
So that pretty much cleared out Regan's claim of SAD63 violating her Constitutional rights (unless she decides to appeal to a higher court which must be done within 10 days of the issuance of the decision - or by May 22,2009.)
Now - On to Regan's State Law Claims:
On the First and Second counts, Regan asserts:
To begin, you need to know that the initial request was filed by SAD63 for a Summary Judgement against the claims Regan's had filed (in violation of her Constitutional rights) via the Federal Court system (and then tacked on her Maine Court claims as well). According to the U.S. District Court, "Summary Judgment 'should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Bottom Line: In essence the judge is saying ...If , in this case, the Plaintiff has shown enough via the evidence and relationship to precendent law to conclude that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff then a Summary Judgement should not be rendered - BUT if the Defendant can show that there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff 's claim to believe a reasonable jury would render a verdict in support of the Plaintiff's claim, then the judge should render a Summary Judgment - which means to throw out the Plaintiff's claim.
First you need to understand that Regan, the former superintendent and the plaintiff in this lawsuit, made ONE basic claim (with some "stringers") that is a Constitutional law issue and therefore an issue to be determined at the United States District Court level. Regan also made several additional claims that come under Maine state law jurisdiction.
I'm going to present the issues here in the same order (Federal Court first and Maine Court Second).
Regan's one basic claim that is a Constitutional law issue is her allegation that the SAD63 School Board "acting under color of state law, violated her federal due process, privacy, free speech, and equal protection rights." She makes this claim because with respect to the "due process" component, she was deprived her rights in property via continued employment and her liberty via her reputation. (Under this flag of Constitutional law, Regan is claiming she was fired illegally - without the proper procedures being met, was denied Due Process and thereby denied her rights and liberty under the law.)
Part of Regan's argument is that she had been hired by a joint board consisting of SAD63 and CSD8 (Consolidated School District 8 comprised of the towns of Aurora, Osborn, Amherst and Great Pond) and, as such, could only be terminated by the same joint board. Since the termination action in question was committed solely by SAD63, Regan's position is that it is illegal.
The Defendants (SAD63) position is that there was no official "joint board" and that the arrangement was only a cost-savings arrangement. The SAD63 Board further states Regan had a predeprivation due process (which means the First Step in a Two-Step due process precedure - my explanation) in which all due process rights were respected. The Defendants argue that Regan fails (in the arguments before the District Court) to adequately plead anything else in support of her claim (that her Constitutional rights were violated).
The District Court judge reviewed the requirements of the applicable law (Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act) and decided that the question was: "whether Regan received, or stands to receive sufficient process from the State of Maine." The judge determined, after wading through several precedent cases, that "Before a tenured public employee is discharged, she is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against her, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present her side of the story." "These are the 'minimum procedural requirements' that must be afforded as a matter of federal law."
Now, I will tell you that Regan (through her attorney) went on extensively to allege that there were more reasons (the "stringers") behind SAD63's termination of Regan's employment which Regan alleges she was not officially noticed, but the judge gave this allegation no merit. The judge found that the investigative findings provided by SAD63's attorney (Wade) on May 12, 2008 to Regan with a list of the grounds being considered sufficient to justify the termination proceedings.
The judge also found the termination hearings afforded Regan followed Wade's findings and notification to Regan sufficient to meet the predeprivation requirements of the law. Regan was afforded opportunities to present her side of the story (both orally and in writing) at meetings on both July 18 and 29 prior to the Board's vote that called for her termination. All of the extraneous issues Regan tried to inject re: additional reasons various members of the Board used (to terminate her) but had not "noticed" her, were addressed by the judge and dismissed as issues which the judge said Regan should have expected. The judge further stated "All of this litigious conduct commenced following the October 22,2007, board meeting and there can be no doubt that Regan fully understood the correlation between the issue of the tape recordings and her institution of charges against the Board. Regan must have understood at the time that her commencement of legal proceedings against the SAD63 Board and a majority of its members was something that could galvanize the nascent movement against her continued employment, whether it actually did or not."
The judge explained that her sole reason for conducting the May 7, 2009 limited oral argument "was out of concern that the parties (Regan and SAD63) were overlooking legal authority (available via postdeprivation proceedings that could cure any alleged shortcomings in the predeprivation process). The judge's issue here was that, if Regan's position was correct that the CSD8 Board needed to be a party to the termination consideration/procedure in order for the termination to be legal or if the SAD63 Board was so biased against Regan as to have prevented her from receiving adequate due process at the predeprivation, was there adequate protection for Regan via the postdeprivation process to afford her the required due process?
Conclusion: After all of the arguments were heard and all of the legal precedent cases were thoroughly reviewed, the Judge Ruled: (1) Regan was given notice of the causes the SAD63 was considering for termination via the written investigative report on May 12, 2008, (2) the (U.S.) Supreme Court held (in a precedent case) that "the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions" in a due process tribunal does not build an unconstitutional, structural bias into administrative, due process proceedings, (3) "in the instant case, the ultimate decisionmaker is the Commissioner of Education, who did not preside over the underlying investigation and discharge proceeding." And "state law provides the Commissioner with the authority to afford a discharged superintendent with a full-blown postdeprivation administrative hearing." Therefore, the judge concluded Regan had failed to "demonstrate that the State of Maine will not afford her an adequate postdeprivation administrative hearing before the Commissioner and all appearances are to the contrary. (emphasis added by me). "The statute that governs the discharge of superintendents flatly provides for an appeal before the Commissioner of Education and, moreover, provides that the Commissioner 'shall (that wording is usually indicative of a mandate - my wording here) hold a hearing as part of the appeal'." "This hearing should ensure that the (SAD63's) Board's determination of disputed issues of fact and discipline will not be the ultimate determination. Under all of the available precedent discussed (within this decision), even if there exists sufficient evience to support a finding that SAD63's decision was poisoned by personal bias on certain board members, a postdepreivation administrative hearing in which the Commissioner makes de novo (meaning - once more) findings on disputed factual matters and discipline will satisfy due process requirements. I therefore recommend that the Court grant the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment against (Regan's claim of Constitutional violation of due process) so that, hopefully, the state process can run its course without much further ado."
So that pretty much cleared out Regan's claim of SAD63 violating her Constitutional rights (unless she decides to appeal to a higher court which must be done within 10 days of the issuance of the decision - or by May 22,2009.)
Now - On to Regan's State Law Claims:
On the First and Second counts, Regan asserts:
- SAD63 violated Maine's Freedom of Access Act and the Superindentent Discharge Statute by not publically voting and providing her with a right to tell her side of the story before the Board could convene an investigation related to her potential discharge
On the Third count, Regan asserts:
- a violation of her right to review her personnel file (this appears to have been addressed - see below). It appears Regan had filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue however, I believe I understood the attorneys to say the file had been provided (with some explanation as to the delay in the Defendants ability to access it in the first place). That may explain the judge's decision on this motion as follows.
On the Fourth and Fifth count, Regan asserts:
- a breach of contract and tortious (pertaining to tort law) interference with her contract
On the Sixth (?) listed as Seventh count, Regan asserts:
- a claim of defamation under the Main Tort Claims Act
Additionally, Regan has added two more counts falling under the asgis of the Maine Human Rights Act:
Count Eight asserts:
- Whistleblower retaliation which relates back to the taped minutes which were knowingly removed and then returned to the administrative office and then the after-the-fact "theft report" filed with the police.
Count Nine asserts"
- Retaliation for filing a charge with the Maine Human Rights Commission.
The judge ruled on these matters as follows:
"...I RECOMMEND that the court GRANT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ...IN PART, by entering judgment for Defendants on ... the solitary federal claim; enter an order remanding the remaining state law issues and claims to the Maine Superior Court; and MOOT Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment."
NOTE: If you are interested in reading the list of charges the SAD63 noticed as Cause for Termination, please make the request in a Comment following this blog and I will provide them (either in a response Comment or in a blog).
As for how long this will go on - or how much the legal costs will end up totaling, that pretty much depends on Regan - how much longer she wants to drag this out (the Appeal process through the courts plus the State of Maine Commissioner of Education). It would appear only the courts can grant Regan any financial remedy which is what she is "requesting." And if the Commissioner, after hearing all of the evidence to be presented, determines the termination was legal and due process was accorded under "Maine law conditions for the discharge of a superintendent", many of the Maine Court issues would appear to be addressed as well.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Best strawberry ice cream ever!
Did you read the article recently where Hood announced it had cancelled its contracts with several Maine dairy farmers - farmers Hood had convinced to take on the expensive of becoming organic? Seems Hood decided it had become too expensive to transport the Maine milk to New York for processing and then back for distribution. So they just left the Maine dairy farmers high and dry.
Well, along came Sugar Maple Creamery (from Massachusetts) to the rescue. TaDa. Sugar Maple Creamery picked up those Maine dairy farmers' contracts and started producing the best ice cream I've ever tasted. It's Premium 14% butterfat ice cream made with hormone-free Maine milk and cream and marketed with such names as: Acadia Chocolate, Portland Coffee House Coffee, Down East Strawberry (the best ever), Aurora Borealis, Caribou Caramel - and many more.
Where can you find these delectable sweets? Right here in Eddington at the Clewley Farms Restaurant. And in another week they'll be starting to serve old-fashioned cookies, too. Want another piece of good news? The restaurant has a newsletter that prints discounts coupons. Want to get on the mailing list for the newsletter? Just send them an email and request to be put on their mailing list - I did. The strawberry ice cream is just too good to miss out on.
email address: clewleyfarm@yahoo.com
Seven baby red foxes! A neighbor came by the other day with photos of her "babies" - and their momma. And this momma couldn't have been my little red fox, we both agree. Her foxes are so comfortable around her they even peek out at her from their burrow when she takes their photograph and play around in my neighbior's back yard (with momma watching carefully). Amazing.
A heron flew alongside my waterfront the other afternoon heading toward the west end cove. I've seen them in the thoroughfare in the past but never flying along the same air traffic lanes used by the eagles in this area of Davis Pond. Wonder if there's a winged air traffic controller in the area. Must be some good feeding somewhere around here.
Support our local businesses - we need them. Rideout Gardens are open - gorgeous flowers and hanging baskets galore (all in better condition than what you'll find at Walmart or Lowe's in Brewer). The Petal Patch is also open - with some lovely samples available at Brian Tabers Mobile Homes (right next to the Eddington Post Office). The Petal Patch is just west of the Eddington Town Office. Purchasing flowers at these businesses will not only ensure a better quality of flower that will bloom bigger and better (both my gardens and pots are proof of that!) - but will help our community's tax base and take some of the burden off home owners' property taxes.
The same can be said for purchasing your car and boat gasoline at either Tradewinds or the Eddington Store (which also sells propane). Both of these businesses sell great sandwiches and other food, beer, wine, milk, butter, etc. and household products. Their unleaded gasoline prices are as good as, if not better than, what you'll find in Bangor or Brewer. Helping our local businesses is good business for our towns. Which is why the Selectmen and Planning Board need to re-visit the Sign Ordinance.
When certain aspects of the current ordinance cut down on the business being conducted, because potential customers think the business is closed or out-of-business or services are no longer being provided, the ordinance is hurting the town as well as the business. The fact the ordinance was passed at the Town Meeting is almost irrelevant since few of the people had even read the ordinance (sometimes I think we are a community of sheep - not good) and hearing what I have this past week, I have to wonder if the Planning Board ever asked for input from the representatives of the town businesses before presenting them to the Selectmen in the first place.
This week's meetings: Monday, the 18th - School Board Meeting @ Holbrook Middle School @ 6:30pm; Tuesday, the 19th - Eddington Selectmen Meeting @ Town Office @ 6pm.
Well, along came Sugar Maple Creamery (from Massachusetts) to the rescue. TaDa. Sugar Maple Creamery picked up those Maine dairy farmers' contracts and started producing the best ice cream I've ever tasted. It's Premium 14% butterfat ice cream made with hormone-free Maine milk and cream and marketed with such names as: Acadia Chocolate, Portland Coffee House Coffee, Down East Strawberry (the best ever), Aurora Borealis, Caribou Caramel - and many more.
Where can you find these delectable sweets? Right here in Eddington at the Clewley Farms Restaurant. And in another week they'll be starting to serve old-fashioned cookies, too. Want another piece of good news? The restaurant has a newsletter that prints discounts coupons. Want to get on the mailing list for the newsletter? Just send them an email and request to be put on their mailing list - I did. The strawberry ice cream is just too good to miss out on.
email address: clewleyfarm@yahoo.com
Seven baby red foxes! A neighbor came by the other day with photos of her "babies" - and their momma. And this momma couldn't have been my little red fox, we both agree. Her foxes are so comfortable around her they even peek out at her from their burrow when she takes their photograph and play around in my neighbior's back yard (with momma watching carefully). Amazing.
A heron flew alongside my waterfront the other afternoon heading toward the west end cove. I've seen them in the thoroughfare in the past but never flying along the same air traffic lanes used by the eagles in this area of Davis Pond. Wonder if there's a winged air traffic controller in the area. Must be some good feeding somewhere around here.
Support our local businesses - we need them. Rideout Gardens are open - gorgeous flowers and hanging baskets galore (all in better condition than what you'll find at Walmart or Lowe's in Brewer). The Petal Patch is also open - with some lovely samples available at Brian Tabers Mobile Homes (right next to the Eddington Post Office). The Petal Patch is just west of the Eddington Town Office. Purchasing flowers at these businesses will not only ensure a better quality of flower that will bloom bigger and better (both my gardens and pots are proof of that!) - but will help our community's tax base and take some of the burden off home owners' property taxes.
The same can be said for purchasing your car and boat gasoline at either Tradewinds or the Eddington Store (which also sells propane). Both of these businesses sell great sandwiches and other food, beer, wine, milk, butter, etc. and household products. Their unleaded gasoline prices are as good as, if not better than, what you'll find in Bangor or Brewer. Helping our local businesses is good business for our towns. Which is why the Selectmen and Planning Board need to re-visit the Sign Ordinance.
When certain aspects of the current ordinance cut down on the business being conducted, because potential customers think the business is closed or out-of-business or services are no longer being provided, the ordinance is hurting the town as well as the business. The fact the ordinance was passed at the Town Meeting is almost irrelevant since few of the people had even read the ordinance (sometimes I think we are a community of sheep - not good) and hearing what I have this past week, I have to wonder if the Planning Board ever asked for input from the representatives of the town businesses before presenting them to the Selectmen in the first place.
This week's meetings: Monday, the 18th - School Board Meeting @ Holbrook Middle School @ 6:30pm; Tuesday, the 19th - Eddington Selectmen Meeting @ Town Office @ 6pm.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
SAD63 Public Budget Hearing - May 13 @ Holbrook
It is difficult to know where to begin - with the data that was presented by the SAD63 Business Manager, Ms. Mitchell (some of which was printed in the BDN the day preceeding the Public Hearing), the questions or issues raised by the (very small number of) people from the three communities in attendance, some of the explanations provided by Ms. Mitchell, the absence of various members of the School Board (at least all three Eddington Board members were there), the misrepresentations of information provided by the School Board Chairman, Mr. Varnun, or the "say what?" answer provided by Interim-Superintendant, Mr. Hart, when asked what the plan was for paying the ongoing costs of the lawsuit.
Knowing that the vast majority of those in attendance had either read information in this blog or articles in the BDN or had been in attendance at the SAD63 Budget & Finance meetings (including the Citizens Advisory Committee) I wondered at the audacity of Mr. Varnum's statement that the lawsuit has cost only $160 thousand to date. (We won't go into the several minutes it took him to come up with that amount or his statement that Mr. Dench, the attorney for SAD63, has been providing a portion of his services "gratis" - the correct term being pro bono. We won't go into the issue that the amount of $217,750.87 was announced in both the BDN and at the April 27, 2009 School Board meeting - with documented payments of $61,345.10 from the first SAD63 insurance policy and an estimated $$65-70,000 from budgeted salary savings from the full-time superintendent's position through 6/30/09 leaving an estimated current balance $90-$87,404. And we won't discuss Mr. Varnum's statement in the Citizens' Advisory Committee that he believed in transparency.) But really?!
When a member from the public asked how the School Board planned to pay the costs of the lawsuit (ongoing - not even addressing any current balance), Mr. Hart stood up and hemmed and hawed a bit before saying they - meaning the Board - would have to put the costs back into the School Budget. That is NOT the reasoning he used in the last Budget and Finance Committee meeting for the explanation he (and allegedly Ms. Mitchell) had for reducing the 4th draft proposed BOD legal budget line item from $100,000. to $15,000. In Committee, Mr. Hart's rationale was that, once the final lawsuit costs were known, the BOD would have to come back to the voters of Clifton, Eddington and Holden to request authorization to obtain a long-term loan to be paid off over a period of years to cover the legal costs. Since it is impossible at this point to project what the costs will be, this seemed a reasonable approach - but why not admit it and explain it that way to the public? Perhaps he didn't know that at least half of the people in attendance read this blog on a regular basis. (I know because of the phone calls I receive.)
NOW - when one knows the voters are being given the shimmy-sham by the two quasi-leaders of SAD63 on two obvious pieces of information, just how much should we, the voters, be trusting the validity of the data being used to "justify" this proposed budget that is $269,155. higher than last year's budget?
To digress just a bit, let's review the budget costs per town (rounded off) since 2004-05 as they compare to the proposed 2009-10 (data from SAD63 2007-08 & 2009-10 Budget Hearing reports)
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Clifton: 572,020 485,892 481,832 501,758 541,551 594,004
Edd.: 1,303,530 1,157,061 1,104,381 1,097,246 1,140,321 1,285,609
Holden 2,245,633 2,028,229 1,947,958 2,000,320 2,240,684 2,312,097
_______ ________ _______ _______ ________ ________
Total: 4,121,183 3,671,183 3,534,172 3,599,324 3,922,555 4,191,710
According to SAD63 report budget data, the towns' share of proposed 2009-10 budget will be $657, 538 higher than the 2006-07 budget. Of course, part of that increase must be attributed (to some degree) to the shell game being played in Augusta.
Although the Federal government intended Maine to receive $168,269 in federal stimulas funding, the Baldacci administration is intending to use this money as part of the standard state education funding (subtracting the same amount from the state's portion for the district's K-12 education funding). So no stimulas there. Then the State is also subtracting the penalties allocated to the three towns for voting down school consolidation. That amount is $163,167 (up from the original $157,000). (Clifton: $23,019, Eddington: $50,013, and Holden: $90,135).
As a result, the State is expected to only provide $4,803.034. (I say 'expected' because I have given up on believing this Baldacci administration will ever keep its word on anything re: their actions having no impact on increasing the people's property taxes. We already have too many examples of what Baldacci's words are worth.)
So, let's look at the total proposed School Budget (I'm going Bottom Line first and then talk about where I think cuts can and should be made).
Current Total: $9,478,014.
LESS:
Projected 2009-2010 Interest Income (5,000.)
2008-2009 Fund Balance - meaning unspent funds
allocated to the 2008-09 budget to be rolledover (310,001.)
__________
Sub-total : 9,163,013.
State of Maine Funding 4,803,034.
Federal (stimulus) Funding via State of Maine 168,269.
__________
Sub-total: 4,191,710. (balance to be
picked up
locally)
Local Share per town:
Clifton: $ 594,004. an increase of 9.69% over 2008-09
Eddington: $ 1,285,609. an increase of 12.74% over 2008-09 (which will cause a 1 mill tax
increase per the town manager)
Holden: $ 2,312,097. an increase of 3.19% over 2008-09
NOTE: There may be copies of the Power Point presentation used at the meeting at your local Town Office. Selectmen/women for all three towns were in attendance and they took additional copies back to their respective Town Offices for anyone interested in looking at the various costs attributed to salaries, benefits, programs, etc.
In the Proposed Budget are costs I think we can remove This Year - and - costs we should definitely remove when certain contracts expire in 2010.
In 2010:
Knowing that the vast majority of those in attendance had either read information in this blog or articles in the BDN or had been in attendance at the SAD63 Budget & Finance meetings (including the Citizens Advisory Committee) I wondered at the audacity of Mr. Varnum's statement that the lawsuit has cost only $160 thousand to date. (We won't go into the several minutes it took him to come up with that amount or his statement that Mr. Dench, the attorney for SAD63, has been providing a portion of his services "gratis" - the correct term being pro bono. We won't go into the issue that the amount of $217,750.87 was announced in both the BDN and at the April 27, 2009 School Board meeting - with documented payments of $61,345.10 from the first SAD63 insurance policy and an estimated $$65-70,000 from budgeted salary savings from the full-time superintendent's position through 6/30/09 leaving an estimated current balance $90-$87,404. And we won't discuss Mr. Varnum's statement in the Citizens' Advisory Committee that he believed in transparency.) But really?!
When a member from the public asked how the School Board planned to pay the costs of the lawsuit (ongoing - not even addressing any current balance), Mr. Hart stood up and hemmed and hawed a bit before saying they - meaning the Board - would have to put the costs back into the School Budget. That is NOT the reasoning he used in the last Budget and Finance Committee meeting for the explanation he (and allegedly Ms. Mitchell) had for reducing the 4th draft proposed BOD legal budget line item from $100,000. to $15,000. In Committee, Mr. Hart's rationale was that, once the final lawsuit costs were known, the BOD would have to come back to the voters of Clifton, Eddington and Holden to request authorization to obtain a long-term loan to be paid off over a period of years to cover the legal costs. Since it is impossible at this point to project what the costs will be, this seemed a reasonable approach - but why not admit it and explain it that way to the public? Perhaps he didn't know that at least half of the people in attendance read this blog on a regular basis. (I know because of the phone calls I receive.)
NOW - when one knows the voters are being given the shimmy-sham by the two quasi-leaders of SAD63 on two obvious pieces of information, just how much should we, the voters, be trusting the validity of the data being used to "justify" this proposed budget that is $269,155. higher than last year's budget?
To digress just a bit, let's review the budget costs per town (rounded off) since 2004-05 as they compare to the proposed 2009-10 (data from SAD63 2007-08 & 2009-10 Budget Hearing reports)
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Clifton: 572,020 485,892 481,832 501,758 541,551 594,004
Edd.: 1,303,530 1,157,061 1,104,381 1,097,246 1,140,321 1,285,609
Holden 2,245,633 2,028,229 1,947,958 2,000,320 2,240,684 2,312,097
_______ ________ _______ _______ ________ ________
Total: 4,121,183 3,671,183 3,534,172 3,599,324 3,922,555 4,191,710
According to SAD63 report budget data, the towns' share of proposed 2009-10 budget will be $657, 538 higher than the 2006-07 budget. Of course, part of that increase must be attributed (to some degree) to the shell game being played in Augusta.
Although the Federal government intended Maine to receive $168,269 in federal stimulas funding, the Baldacci administration is intending to use this money as part of the standard state education funding (subtracting the same amount from the state's portion for the district's K-12 education funding). So no stimulas there. Then the State is also subtracting the penalties allocated to the three towns for voting down school consolidation. That amount is $163,167 (up from the original $157,000). (Clifton: $23,019, Eddington: $50,013, and Holden: $90,135).
As a result, the State is expected to only provide $4,803.034. (I say 'expected' because I have given up on believing this Baldacci administration will ever keep its word on anything re: their actions having no impact on increasing the people's property taxes. We already have too many examples of what Baldacci's words are worth.)
So, let's look at the total proposed School Budget (I'm going Bottom Line first and then talk about where I think cuts can and should be made).
Current Total: $9,478,014.
LESS:
Projected 2009-2010 Interest Income (5,000.)
2008-2009 Fund Balance - meaning unspent funds
allocated to the 2008-09 budget to be rolledover (310,001.)
__________
Sub-total : 9,163,013.
State of Maine Funding 4,803,034.
Federal (stimulus) Funding via State of Maine 168,269.
__________
Sub-total: 4,191,710. (balance to be
picked up
locally)
Local Share per town:
Clifton: $ 594,004. an increase of 9.69% over 2008-09
Eddington: $ 1,285,609. an increase of 12.74% over 2008-09 (which will cause a 1 mill tax
increase per the town manager)
Holden: $ 2,312,097. an increase of 3.19% over 2008-09
NOTE: There may be copies of the Power Point presentation used at the meeting at your local Town Office. Selectmen/women for all three towns were in attendance and they took additional copies back to their respective Town Offices for anyone interested in looking at the various costs attributed to salaries, benefits, programs, etc.
In the Proposed Budget are costs I think we can remove This Year - and - costs we should definitely remove when certain contracts expire in 2010.
- The school library at Holbrook Middle School (?) has previously been run by volunteers. This year the Principal reportedly wants to hire a part-time Librarian which will increase wages on that line item by at least $5,000.
- There is a $13,881 line item increase that I believe is the planned computer program for parents to be able to access the school (computer system) to check on their child's grades/performance in school - maybe his/her attendance or whatever. Now wait a minute. With a secretary at each school as well as one in the Special Education Director's Office and one in the Superintendent's Office (five secretaries!) what's wrong with the idea of parents' making a phone call if they want some information?! With all the salaries and benefits (and not that many students when you look at it) some personal feedback is a lot better than a blooming computer - not to mention the number of families that are terminating the internet at home because they are having to cut costs in these economic times. A message the Business Manager and certain others seem to have a problem hearing. And there is always the PTF conference meetings. If parents aren't going to avail themselves of these avenues of communication they certainly aren't going to use a computer system!
In 2010:
- When teacher contracts are renegotiated, taxpayers should cease to be paying the academic costs of teachers taking classes toward a Master's Degree. Those closts should be bourne by the individuals unless they are required by SAD63 as a condition of employment. REASON: It appears that when school consolidation first reared its head, SAD63 teachers believed we would be joining the Brewer district where, according to their union, teachers who have a Master's Degree receive a higher level of compensation. Consequently SAD63 teachers wanted to start getting ready for that higher compensation (taxpayer costs, too) and had their union negotiate that SAD63 would pay for their M.A. classes. This amounts to more than $4,500. annually.
And no teachers currently on the SAD63 BOD should sit on the district negotiating team since it would be a clear Conflict of Interest even if they belong to a different union.
- $72,000. (and 6 weeks of paid vacation) is at least one-third too much to be paying for a school district's business manager - especially a district this size. (We won't talk about that bonus clause that should never have been approved by a particular individual and never taken to the BOD - or the outstanding questions of whether taxes and FICA deductions were ever taken - or the issue of taxpayer money being used for bonuses.) There are plenty of well qualified people for that position who won't have any trouble creating timely financial reports for the BOD Finance Committee, projected budgets compatible with the contracted service reports, etc., etc. for at least $20,000 less and two weeks paid vacation.
And sometime soon, very soon, one has to wonder WHEN the BOD is going to start advertising or initiating an Executive Search for an Interim Superintendent. Mr. Hart has stated he is looking forward to resuming his previous retirement status. His current appointment as Interim Superintendent reportedly ends 6/30/09. This time it would be good to have a candidate(s) who does not have previous relationships with SAD63 staffs and are going to be more involved with issues what will need to be address in the coming year. It would also be nice to have someone who doesn't have such raw nerves around women who don't click their heels and salute.
A Note To Holden Selectmen: When you appoint a member of your community to the Citizens Advisory Budget & Advisory Committee (who did an excellent job BTW), you might have the courtesy to let her speak for herself and present the work she did instead of having Mr. Varnum appear on behalf of that Committee. Just because you had the multi-page report she had prepared from the Committee's work, and acknowledged her off the record, it was insulting. And FYI, many of the questions raised by the public at the May 13 meeting ,such as why the proposed budget doesn't show what was actually spent from that which was budgeted (line by line) in the previous year and how line item that compares to the same ine item in the proposed budget was actually discussed in the Citizens' Committee by more than one person. But the absence of such reporting is an excellent way to avoid budget accountability.
A Note to Clifton's Selectmen: Selectwoman Penny Peasley is one smart cookie! She is an asset to the Citizen's Advisory Budget & Finance Committee and her recommendations should be strongly heeded.
A Note to Eddington's Selectmen: Ralph Russell does a commendable job as Chair of the Citizen's Advisory Budget and Finance Committee - but where is the Selectman you were requested to assign to the Committee?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Planning Board meeting results
Gretchen's work on the Shoreland Zone map was truly impressive. The workshop included determining the "perennial" status of various streams and water areas. "Perennial" means the water is running most of the time - rather than running off and on, such as only after rain fall or snow melt (notwithstanding the period of time when it's frozen). If I'm wrong here I'm sure Gretchen will add a Comment which I always appreciate.) If the water body is determined to be perennial, the map will show a "buffer zone" which will mean no timber cutting (maybe no development either) in that area - a certain number of feet - 75-100-250 whatever, to preserve the water quality.
Bottom line: The map will show all water areas, bogs, ponds, streams and rivers and the associated buffers. This includes residential and limited-residential zoning that is or will be associated with those water areas (shoreland zones). There will be a Public Hearing when the final map is finished and all residents owning any property on or near shoreland areas should definitely attend to ensure the map correctly reflects their knowledge AND acknowledges what they believe to be their property rights (grandfathered or otherwise). Remember, this map will be sent on to Augusta and become the Bible of Shoreland Zone law for Eddington properties. And it is being developed by human beings using high technology, to be sure, but also personal opinion. Make sure your opinion is registered, too.
My one concern here is that it will be totally beholden on any land buyer to know all these zones and buffers and Maine laws (on their own and only in Maine) before buying a lot. Even with the discussed vellum lot boundry (or such best guess) overlay that can be laid over the Shoreland Zone Map which will be hung in the Town Office may not be all that accurate. What about someone from out of the area buying a lot from someone here (and the buyer doesn't know all this stuff) with the expectation of being able to live like a normal human being - or build a normal home. WHO is responsible to providing all these limitations to the buyer? The seller from here who never bothers to attend any of these meetings to even learn this stuff? Talk about "Let the buyer beware!"
Seems there are parties who just want this area/state to revert to total wilderness. No wonder this state's in such a financial mess with the left hand not thinking about what the right hand is doing. (But I've an idea what the right hand is doing, folks.)
The meeting lasted nearly two hours, not all of which was devoted to the map. Some Sign Ordinance issues came up. I expect we'll hear more about that at next week's Selectmen's meeting on Tuesday night at 6pm.
Tomorrow's blogs will be devoted to Wednesday night's Public Hearing on the Proposed School Budget for SAD63 where there were all of SIX people from Eddington in attendance (plus our three School Board reps). Considering that Eddington will take the biggest tax hit this year - a full 1 mill increase which translates to an additional $100.00 per $1,000. of property valuation if I understood the Town Manager correctly - you might want to listen up to the information and think about how much you want to support this up and up budget.
There will be a second blog re: the recent Federal District Court decision that was issued 5/12 following the hearing a week ago. Win a bit and wait. The saga continues.
Bottom line: The map will show all water areas, bogs, ponds, streams and rivers and the associated buffers. This includes residential and limited-residential zoning that is or will be associated with those water areas (shoreland zones). There will be a Public Hearing when the final map is finished and all residents owning any property on or near shoreland areas should definitely attend to ensure the map correctly reflects their knowledge AND acknowledges what they believe to be their property rights (grandfathered or otherwise). Remember, this map will be sent on to Augusta and become the Bible of Shoreland Zone law for Eddington properties. And it is being developed by human beings using high technology, to be sure, but also personal opinion. Make sure your opinion is registered, too.
My one concern here is that it will be totally beholden on any land buyer to know all these zones and buffers and Maine laws (on their own and only in Maine) before buying a lot. Even with the discussed vellum lot boundry (or such best guess) overlay that can be laid over the Shoreland Zone Map which will be hung in the Town Office may not be all that accurate. What about someone from out of the area buying a lot from someone here (and the buyer doesn't know all this stuff) with the expectation of being able to live like a normal human being - or build a normal home. WHO is responsible to providing all these limitations to the buyer? The seller from here who never bothers to attend any of these meetings to even learn this stuff? Talk about "Let the buyer beware!"
Seems there are parties who just want this area/state to revert to total wilderness. No wonder this state's in such a financial mess with the left hand not thinking about what the right hand is doing. (But I've an idea what the right hand is doing, folks.)
The meeting lasted nearly two hours, not all of which was devoted to the map. Some Sign Ordinance issues came up. I expect we'll hear more about that at next week's Selectmen's meeting on Tuesday night at 6pm.
Tomorrow's blogs will be devoted to Wednesday night's Public Hearing on the Proposed School Budget for SAD63 where there were all of SIX people from Eddington in attendance (plus our three School Board reps). Considering that Eddington will take the biggest tax hit this year - a full 1 mill increase which translates to an additional $100.00 per $1,000. of property valuation if I understood the Town Manager correctly - you might want to listen up to the information and think about how much you want to support this up and up budget.
There will be a second blog re: the recent Federal District Court decision that was issued 5/12 following the hearing a week ago. Win a bit and wait. The saga continues.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Planning Board Meeting - May 12 - Correction
Tonight is the workshop for the Shoreland Zoning Map which will be presented at the Eddington Planning Board - Town Office @ 6:30pm. BTW - this map was the sole work product of Gretchen, who will be sworn in tonight as an Alternate Member of the Board. I misunderstood Craig Russell's contribution (from the Selectmen's meeting). Craig is working with Gretchen on the Town Website. Seems to me I got it right the first time I wrote about it here though.
You want to see where your residence is located? This is the time. Want to see how the new Shoreland Ordinances will impact your neighborhood? This is the time to ask questions - to look at the immediate area and see.
The map includes David and Chemo Ponds, steams, bogs, wetlands, protected areas, and more. Gretchen's comments from earlier posted blogs indicate she used the GIS sysem. Want more info, review her comments here by screening down to blogs with headlines noting the Shoreland Ordinance topic (and there are several that go back two or three months) and click on the pencil icon noting comments have been made. You can read everything written in the comments (and my responses to the comments).
OR - come to the meeting! Hope to see you there.
You want to see where your residence is located? This is the time. Want to see how the new Shoreland Ordinances will impact your neighborhood? This is the time to ask questions - to look at the immediate area and see.
The map includes David and Chemo Ponds, steams, bogs, wetlands, protected areas, and more. Gretchen's comments from earlier posted blogs indicate she used the GIS sysem. Want more info, review her comments here by screening down to blogs with headlines noting the Shoreland Ordinance topic (and there are several that go back two or three months) and click on the pencil icon noting comments have been made. You can read everything written in the comments (and my responses to the comments).
OR - come to the meeting! Hope to see you there.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Money, Motivation & District Court Hearing of 5/7/09
I admit to being comfortable in courtrooms. I enjoy listening to legal arguments being presented to both judges and juries. It's been a major part of my career - and my son is an excellent trial attorney with a respected practice in Southern California. At one point we even had separate cases before the same judge. Now that was an interesting experience. I tell you all this as a way of explaining why I found this morning's Oral Arguments in U.S. Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk's courtroom in the Federal Court House (as to the nature of this case between former superintendent Louise Regan and the SAD63 School Board) both illuminating and enlightening - on several levels.
It is a small courtroom. Basically set up for two opposing counsels, each with a table long enough for three people. A table microphone sat on each table. Behind the chairs at each table, divided by a narrow aisle, there were two short benches - each capable of seating three people at most. I sat at the back bench near the rear door and located behind Ms. Regan's table. It was the shortest bench in the room and capable for two small people, at best. This was definitely not going to be a Perry Mason experience.
Ms. Regan was there with two attorneys. They all sat at the front table to the left. No one else was there in support of her (the plaintiff). Mr. Dench, the attorney for the School Board (the defendants) sat alone at the table to the right. Seated in the rear bench behind Mr. Dench were Don Varnum, School Board Chair; Susan Dench, Mr. Dench's wife; and Karen Clark, School Board member.
Both because I was the last person to enter the room as the proceeding began and because I try to be objective when listening to oral arguments - to better hear the issues and evaluate the case being presented (unless I'm the one presenting the case as I once did) -, I sat in the bench closest to the door and to the rear which placed me behind the plaintiff's table.
Judge opened the proceedings by asking Mr. Dench to clarify some of the issues regarding Maine law pertaining to the process Ms. Regan had available to defend herself and answer to the School Board's charges used for termination of employment (called predeprivation procedure). However, there are certain court decisions (precedent decisions) which the plaintiff is claiming apply in this case which justify the plaintiff's claim that her constitutional rights were violated.
To try to put it in a nutshell, the plaintiff says state law requires the plaintiff had to be officially notified of all of the reasons the Board used to justify terminating her. The plaintiff further states she was not told some of the reasons - only of certain reasons relating to the matter of the taped minutes pertaining to the Board's authorization to talk but not some of the actions the plaintiff had taken early on regarding potential school consolidation partners.
As a side note, various individuals have told me that because of certain unauthorized actions taken by the plaintiff, a former Board member prepared and read a letter in an open Board meeting listing a series of concerns he had re: the plaintiff. Some Board members left in the midst of the reading of the letter. Other members stayed and listened, without comment, until the reading of the letter, was completed. Then the Board adjourned into Executive Session.
As a result of that Executive Session, the letter was withdrawn by the Board member, the Board apologized to the plaintiff, (perhaps there was a clarification or a misunderstanding of the Board's authorization or ?? I don't know - yet. But there was some kind of an agreement between the Board and the plaintiff to let the matter drop and that the plaintiff would not take any legal action against the Board or individuals - hereinafter referred to as the "gentleman's agreement")
But - within a week (or thereabout), the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit against the School Board (thereby breaking the "gentleman's agreement) and I don't have the particulars of what else happened - except that the plaintiff was terminated "for cause" - because of the way the taped minutes had been attempted to be withheld from the Board. Then the plaintiff's filing of a police report when the tape had reportedly been removed by a Board member became an issue. Maybe all these things were happening at the same time or one thing was stimulating the next. Whatever - things were not good.
Somehow the plaintiff was notified that they were considering terminating her for cause and that she had the right to appear before the Board along with an opportunity to respond to the charges and give her explanation (defense). Apparently, when she did appear, she brought along an attorney she had hired independently. And this attorney reportedly directed her not to respond to the Board regarding the charges (that they had notified her were the basis being used for termination).
And this brings us to why the plaintiff has taken her case through the court system instead of through the Superintendent of the State Dept. of education.
The Plaintiff (via her attorney) had taken the position that the reasons she was terminated involved four (4) additional reasons than the ones she was officially notified by the defendants. (1) That she broke the "gentleman's agreement" and brought a lawsuit against the defendants, (2) that she hired her own independent counsel, (3) that she filed a police report when the Board member removed the taped minutes, and (4) this one I don't remember..wasn't taking notes. The plaintiff is stating that since she was not given official notice of these reasons, the defendants did not follow the state law in providing the notification of (all of) the charges as required by law. By this omission on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff is claiming her constitutional rights were violated citing certain precedent cases and that the state procedure (predeprivation procedure) does not apply. Therefore, she is requesting the court grant her all back pay, give her back her job, pay all of her attorney fees, and - in essence - money.
The defendants (via their attorney) are stating that the precedent cases cited state that if there is a predeprivation procedure (which there is and was) there was every opportunity for the plaintiff to explain her actions. In the course of doing so, any of the subsequent actions which she's stating she was never officially notified regarding would have come out. But because the plaintiff chose to not answer any questions, the results of the Hearing before the defendants was because of the plaintiff's own actions.
Additionally, the plaintiff had the right to take her case up to the Superintendent of the DOE (basically appeal the defendants' decision) but the plaintiff chose to defer (her legal decision via her attorneys) and instead chose to continue her lawsuit against the defendants through the courts.
The matter before Judge Kravchuk seemed to be (1) did the plaintiff have recourse through state law to appeal the defendant's termination, (2) had she been given sufficient notice of the reasons for that termination to meet the requirements of the law, and (3) would she have had the opportunity (by going to the DOE superintendent) to have her termination overturned if the DOE superintendent determined the defendants's had acted without sufficient cause or justification (since she would have been able to point out the additional reasons she believed were used even though she was not so notified they were part of the reasons - and did she have the opportunity to have the DOE superintendent consider those actions as well).
While the plaintiff's attorney seemed to argue over and over and over that the case precedents were applicable, particularly because of certain footnotes in the precedents, the judge appeared to be leaning toward the fact that the plaintiff had state law which provided appropriate predeprivation procedures which the plaintiff had chosen to defer (meaning she had chosen not to use). While the judge did not take any position as to whether or not the defendants had acted appropriately (had had just cause - or not), the issues seemed to center around the fact that the plaintiff had purposely chosen not to use the recourse she had at hand.
The judge did not make her decision at the end of the designated hour but I got the feeling that she will render a decision soon - maybe within two weeks or less. Of course that doesn't mean that the plaintiff can't appeal the decision up to the Appellate Court (and the defendants will have to respond there, too) and everyone will incur the costs. However, Judge Kravchuk is very respected and it is not that likely her decision would be overturned.
So, some of this seemed positive. However, there were some disturbing pieces of information that came out - whether the information was taken out of context is unknown.
The plaintiff's attorney stated he had written and interview statements from three School Board members (stating) they (Board members) had not read response documents provided by the plaintiff. Excuse me! Board members have tremendous responsibilities to the public and to school district employees, and in all legal matters Board members (ALL board members) are responsible for reading ALL documents regardless of who is submitting them or the personal opinion a member may have of the person doing the submission. Don't want to do the work of the elected office? Then don't run! The attorney also said that one Board member stated he/she (?) only voted for the plaintiff's termination because the plaintiff hired a private attorney - which was not one of the official reasons given for termination. The attorney inferred that, but for that vote, the attorney might not have been terminated. One has to wonder who on the Board is paying attention to BUSINESS. Sounds like a Koffee Klatch at times. And our children's education is in the hands of such people? And our hard earned tax dollars?
On the other hand - if one thinks in terms of Motivation...maybe we have a few clues why the plaintiff chose not to utilize the DOE superintendent as the appeal route. For arguments sake - let us say the defendants were not justified in terminating the plaintiff - what remedy could she expect to receive from the DOE? Money? No. A return to her position? Possibly. But that was at a time when everyone was expecting SAD63 to consolidate, probably with Brewer and Dr. Lee was pretty much the foregone expected superintendent-to-be of the projected RSU.
So the plaintiff either needed to find a different route of consolidation in the hopes she'd be a stronger candidate for superintendent (not likely based on what I've been able to find out was going on and the feelings of the towns as to where they were willing to have their children going to school) - or - she needed to find a bunch of money to replace the money she was going to lose by being out of work. The lawsuit through the federal courts where she might be able to obtain "punitive damages" was a pocketbook to be tapped. Looks like a motive to me. And if that's the case, it certainly takes the School Board off the hook.
What do you think? The talk around town (at the gas pumps, at the restaurant, at the post office, etc.) is filled with snippets of info. I just listen. Sometimes I ask Questions.
FYI for those who assume there's someone on the Board whispering in my ear - you need to remember the error of assuming. There are people who have decided to be "reporters" because they like this blog - think it's good that someone is finally throwing some light on people/elected bodies who should be accountable to the voters/taxpayers and who have forgotten that that's their duty first and foremost. They call from Clifton, Holden, Eddington - even stop and chat with me when I'm in Brewer. And it's not easy to find my phone number. But people can always write in the comment sections here. :-)
It is a small courtroom. Basically set up for two opposing counsels, each with a table long enough for three people. A table microphone sat on each table. Behind the chairs at each table, divided by a narrow aisle, there were two short benches - each capable of seating three people at most. I sat at the back bench near the rear door and located behind Ms. Regan's table. It was the shortest bench in the room and capable for two small people, at best. This was definitely not going to be a Perry Mason experience.
Ms. Regan was there with two attorneys. They all sat at the front table to the left. No one else was there in support of her (the plaintiff). Mr. Dench, the attorney for the School Board (the defendants) sat alone at the table to the right. Seated in the rear bench behind Mr. Dench were Don Varnum, School Board Chair; Susan Dench, Mr. Dench's wife; and Karen Clark, School Board member.
Both because I was the last person to enter the room as the proceeding began and because I try to be objective when listening to oral arguments - to better hear the issues and evaluate the case being presented (unless I'm the one presenting the case as I once did) -, I sat in the bench closest to the door and to the rear which placed me behind the plaintiff's table.
Judge opened the proceedings by asking Mr. Dench to clarify some of the issues regarding Maine law pertaining to the process Ms. Regan had available to defend herself and answer to the School Board's charges used for termination of employment (called predeprivation procedure). However, there are certain court decisions (precedent decisions) which the plaintiff is claiming apply in this case which justify the plaintiff's claim that her constitutional rights were violated.
To try to put it in a nutshell, the plaintiff says state law requires the plaintiff had to be officially notified of all of the reasons the Board used to justify terminating her. The plaintiff further states she was not told some of the reasons - only of certain reasons relating to the matter of the taped minutes pertaining to the Board's authorization to talk but not some of the actions the plaintiff had taken early on regarding potential school consolidation partners.
As a side note, various individuals have told me that because of certain unauthorized actions taken by the plaintiff, a former Board member prepared and read a letter in an open Board meeting listing a series of concerns he had re: the plaintiff. Some Board members left in the midst of the reading of the letter. Other members stayed and listened, without comment, until the reading of the letter, was completed. Then the Board adjourned into Executive Session.
As a result of that Executive Session, the letter was withdrawn by the Board member, the Board apologized to the plaintiff, (perhaps there was a clarification or a misunderstanding of the Board's authorization or ?? I don't know - yet. But there was some kind of an agreement between the Board and the plaintiff to let the matter drop and that the plaintiff would not take any legal action against the Board or individuals - hereinafter referred to as the "gentleman's agreement")
But - within a week (or thereabout), the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit against the School Board (thereby breaking the "gentleman's agreement) and I don't have the particulars of what else happened - except that the plaintiff was terminated "for cause" - because of the way the taped minutes had been attempted to be withheld from the Board. Then the plaintiff's filing of a police report when the tape had reportedly been removed by a Board member became an issue. Maybe all these things were happening at the same time or one thing was stimulating the next. Whatever - things were not good.
Somehow the plaintiff was notified that they were considering terminating her for cause and that she had the right to appear before the Board along with an opportunity to respond to the charges and give her explanation (defense). Apparently, when she did appear, she brought along an attorney she had hired independently. And this attorney reportedly directed her not to respond to the Board regarding the charges (that they had notified her were the basis being used for termination).
And this brings us to why the plaintiff has taken her case through the court system instead of through the Superintendent of the State Dept. of education.
The Plaintiff (via her attorney) had taken the position that the reasons she was terminated involved four (4) additional reasons than the ones she was officially notified by the defendants. (1) That she broke the "gentleman's agreement" and brought a lawsuit against the defendants, (2) that she hired her own independent counsel, (3) that she filed a police report when the Board member removed the taped minutes, and (4) this one I don't remember..wasn't taking notes. The plaintiff is stating that since she was not given official notice of these reasons, the defendants did not follow the state law in providing the notification of (all of) the charges as required by law. By this omission on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff is claiming her constitutional rights were violated citing certain precedent cases and that the state procedure (predeprivation procedure) does not apply. Therefore, she is requesting the court grant her all back pay, give her back her job, pay all of her attorney fees, and - in essence - money.
The defendants (via their attorney) are stating that the precedent cases cited state that if there is a predeprivation procedure (which there is and was) there was every opportunity for the plaintiff to explain her actions. In the course of doing so, any of the subsequent actions which she's stating she was never officially notified regarding would have come out. But because the plaintiff chose to not answer any questions, the results of the Hearing before the defendants was because of the plaintiff's own actions.
Additionally, the plaintiff had the right to take her case up to the Superintendent of the DOE (basically appeal the defendants' decision) but the plaintiff chose to defer (her legal decision via her attorneys) and instead chose to continue her lawsuit against the defendants through the courts.
The matter before Judge Kravchuk seemed to be (1) did the plaintiff have recourse through state law to appeal the defendant's termination, (2) had she been given sufficient notice of the reasons for that termination to meet the requirements of the law, and (3) would she have had the opportunity (by going to the DOE superintendent) to have her termination overturned if the DOE superintendent determined the defendants's had acted without sufficient cause or justification (since she would have been able to point out the additional reasons she believed were used even though she was not so notified they were part of the reasons - and did she have the opportunity to have the DOE superintendent consider those actions as well).
While the plaintiff's attorney seemed to argue over and over and over that the case precedents were applicable, particularly because of certain footnotes in the precedents, the judge appeared to be leaning toward the fact that the plaintiff had state law which provided appropriate predeprivation procedures which the plaintiff had chosen to defer (meaning she had chosen not to use). While the judge did not take any position as to whether or not the defendants had acted appropriately (had had just cause - or not), the issues seemed to center around the fact that the plaintiff had purposely chosen not to use the recourse she had at hand.
The judge did not make her decision at the end of the designated hour but I got the feeling that she will render a decision soon - maybe within two weeks or less. Of course that doesn't mean that the plaintiff can't appeal the decision up to the Appellate Court (and the defendants will have to respond there, too) and everyone will incur the costs. However, Judge Kravchuk is very respected and it is not that likely her decision would be overturned.
So, some of this seemed positive. However, there were some disturbing pieces of information that came out - whether the information was taken out of context is unknown.
The plaintiff's attorney stated he had written and interview statements from three School Board members (stating) they (Board members) had not read response documents provided by the plaintiff. Excuse me! Board members have tremendous responsibilities to the public and to school district employees, and in all legal matters Board members (ALL board members) are responsible for reading ALL documents regardless of who is submitting them or the personal opinion a member may have of the person doing the submission. Don't want to do the work of the elected office? Then don't run! The attorney also said that one Board member stated he/she (?) only voted for the plaintiff's termination because the plaintiff hired a private attorney - which was not one of the official reasons given for termination. The attorney inferred that, but for that vote, the attorney might not have been terminated. One has to wonder who on the Board is paying attention to BUSINESS. Sounds like a Koffee Klatch at times. And our children's education is in the hands of such people? And our hard earned tax dollars?
On the other hand - if one thinks in terms of Motivation...maybe we have a few clues why the plaintiff chose not to utilize the DOE superintendent as the appeal route. For arguments sake - let us say the defendants were not justified in terminating the plaintiff - what remedy could she expect to receive from the DOE? Money? No. A return to her position? Possibly. But that was at a time when everyone was expecting SAD63 to consolidate, probably with Brewer and Dr. Lee was pretty much the foregone expected superintendent-to-be of the projected RSU.
So the plaintiff either needed to find a different route of consolidation in the hopes she'd be a stronger candidate for superintendent (not likely based on what I've been able to find out was going on and the feelings of the towns as to where they were willing to have their children going to school) - or - she needed to find a bunch of money to replace the money she was going to lose by being out of work. The lawsuit through the federal courts where she might be able to obtain "punitive damages" was a pocketbook to be tapped. Looks like a motive to me. And if that's the case, it certainly takes the School Board off the hook.
What do you think? The talk around town (at the gas pumps, at the restaurant, at the post office, etc.) is filled with snippets of info. I just listen. Sometimes I ask Questions.
FYI for those who assume there's someone on the Board whispering in my ear - you need to remember the error of assuming. There are people who have decided to be "reporters" because they like this blog - think it's good that someone is finally throwing some light on people/elected bodies who should be accountable to the voters/taxpayers and who have forgotten that that's their duty first and foremost. They call from Clifton, Holden, Eddington - even stop and chat with me when I'm in Brewer. And it's not easy to find my phone number. But people can always write in the comment sections here. :-)
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Revisions to Proposed 2009-2010 SAD63 Budget
It appears the Interim Superintendent, Ray Hart, and the SAD63 Business Manager took the comments and suggestions of the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday to heart. According to Mr. Hart, he and Ms. Mitchell spent long hours Tuesday night in preparation of Wednesday's Budget & Finance Committee meeting to reduce the overall total from a projected 5.5% increase (that appeared to be an actual 8.6% increase) down to 2.48%.
The Citizens Advisory Committee had recommended either a zero increase or no more than a 3% increase. To get the budget down to only a 3% increase would have required a reduction of approximatly $185 thousand. The work done by Mr. Hart and Ms. Mitchell resulted in a $281 thousand decrease. To do this they:
The Citizens Advisory Committee had recommended either a zero increase or no more than a 3% increase. To get the budget down to only a 3% increase would have required a reduction of approximatly $185 thousand. The work done by Mr. Hart and Ms. Mitchell resulted in a $281 thousand decrease. To do this they:
- eliminated an increase of $20 thousand for contingency factors in Special Education Tuition paid to other RSUs (meaning we have to hope no increase next year to the 162 Special Needs/Special education students already enrolled in SAD63. Be aware, there are 162 special needs/special ed students identified out of the total SAD63 enrollment of 947. By my calculations that's 17%. Isn't that a bit high? Is SAD63 some kind of a magnet? If so, why? Are these long-term residents or people moving into the area in order to take advantage of our school programs. If it's the former, are we cultivating some environmental problems that are contributing to these problems in our children? If it's the later, is there something we can do to set up some kind of "residency requirements"?)
- reduced the budgeted amount for heating oil for Holbrook by $20 thousand - from the $120,000 budgeted in 2008-09 to $100,000 in 2009-10 - in the hopes that heating oil prices will not go through the roof (although gasoline prices this week alone have been crazy if you've noticed - going from $2.09 on Monday to $2.25 by this afternoon).
- reduced transportation & buses fleet fuel by $16 thousand - from the $71,000 budgeted in 2008-09 to $55,000 in 2009-10. (Again, keep your fingers crossed.)
- reduced the amount of money to be set aside for the Board of Directors' (School Board) legal fees originally planned at $100,000 to be set at $15,000 which is only $5 thousand more than was in the budget for 2008-09. This is an $85 thousand reduction from the earlier projected budget.
There was some discussion re: this last item but the rationale was as follows:
There is no way of knowing how long the lawsuit will continue (see my blog re: Thursday's District Court Hearing) or how expensive the action will finally be. Regardless of the outcome, even if the School Board prevails, the cost is going to be expensive. Mr. Hart's position is that the Board will probably have to go to the SAD63 taxpayers and request a vote authorizing a long-term note to be paid over a period of years. In the meantime, we can keep the budget increases low by being conservative in budgeting money in this line item.
For the most part, I understand this reasoning. On the other hand, there is the argument that budgeting portions of the costs now could keep the accruing costs down.
For Eddington, if I wrote down Mr. Hart's numbers correctly (he does have a tendency to rattle them off as though either no one is really paying attention to the details to take back to their towns' people - or that everyone is taping his remarks and can replay his numbers in order to write them down later. Since I am concerned about how town tax bases are impacted and I don't tape (yet), I asked Mr. Hart to repeat his numbers for Eddington (at least) and to say them slowly enough for me to write them down. Of course, they should be presented in writing and on the overhead at the Public hearing Wednesday. I believe Mr. Hart's estimated total share of the projected costs for Eddington were $1,339,466.44; this turns out to be an increase of $190 thousand over 2008-09. The $190 thousand includes the $50 thousand penalty we decided to take on when we voted down the school consolidation plan. The "for sure numbers" will be covered at the Public Hearing next Wednesday - the 13th - 7pm - Holbrook School - and voters should be there to ask questions.
Per Mr. Hart, the Legislature has determined the towns that voted against consolidation WILL BE REQUIRED to pay the state penalty this coming year (before?) in order to receive the state's contribution to the school budget (even though we have been hearing the penalties might be deferred for up to two years - or not be collected until after the people's Referendum vote on the ballot re: reversing the mandated school consolidation -for those communities that have not already voted for consolidation). I suppose, considering the state's current financial state, it shouldn't come as any surprise the state is out to collect any money it can as fast as it can regardless of past promises.
For the most part, the meeting went well. Sylvia Ellis, the Interim Chair, handled it well and people were complimentary to the work done by Mr. Hart and Ms. Mitchell.
It would be nice if Mr. Hart were not so rude to suggestions that emails be sent to the Entire School Board re: the many meeting dates coming up back to back - especially for the benefit of the new board members and those who work irregular hours or have family responsibilities. Mr. Hart's remarks that the information is on the web was not only non-responsive (most people check their emails daily whereas they don't check the web nearly that often), but his snappish response when asked to be responsive to the question/board member was unprofessional and out-of-line. First: This is not the military and Second: the superintendent is employed by the Board. While we can appreciate the experience and knowledge which enabled him to step in under what is acknowledged to have been a difficult situation, his expressed desire to return to his prior retirement status might be a good thing. This is not the military and the current chain of command now begins with the voter/taxpayers - then the School Board - and then the superintendent.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Selectmen's Meeting of May 5
Penobscot County's assessment (bill) to Eddington has increased $19,713.67 over last year (which was over $23,xxx.xx from the previous year). This increase is primarily due to the cost of county Corrections (jail operations) and the Governor's forced consolidation with the state's corrections. If you remember, the Governor's argument for the consolidation was that it would reduce overall costs and therefore "guarantee" no increase in county property taxes. (Where have we heard this before? Does that man ever actually check out these numbers or the system operations impacting costs before he makes these statements?) Is it any wonder that his word budget-wise as to "no tax increases" and "no increased property taxes" aren't worth the powder to blow....?
When asked for more details, the explanation was that the Governor's office (at the time of the mandated consolidation) had determined that the county jail could be run at a maximum of $6 million and therefore the state's funding would be frozen at that figure. BUT - the state didn't take into account the county was able to buy its food at a lower cost than what the state paid (example: the county paid $ .80 for a certain quantity of hamburger buns while the state was paying $1.20 for the same quantity), nor did the state take into account that the new court house downtown necessitated new (additional) transportation costs to get the prisoners from the jail to and from court (whereas before the court was right next to the jail), nor did it take into account the possibility of increased inmate/prisioner population (example: the jail is constructed with 136 beds but is currently housing 212 inmates/prisoners. This brings up all sorts of increased security issues which translate into costs.) HOWEVER, the state has maintained its fixed funding at $6 million so the county is left to raise the additional funding and that means you know who and how. It also seems the crime rate is going up in the county (probably associated to some degree with the current unemployment rate which is not unusual) and that means jail overcrowding may continue = increased cost over-runs.
The good news is the the County Sheriff's Department has received some highway grant monies which will enable our deputy to spend an additional 16-20 hours (a month? I didn't get the time frame) in Eddington specifically on traffic enforcement (speed, seatbelt and O.U.I. enphasis). Of course any revenue generated via fines goes to the state. No comment.
There was a School Board Report. You already have the information via previous blogs. One thing that did come up later in the evening's information is that there will be a hearing at 9am in Federal District Court - Thursday morning the 7th - in Bangor - re: the lawsuit. The judge has limited the hearing to only 30 minutes per side (probably a Summary of why the sides have submitted/oppose the Motion requesting the Summary Judgement - no arguments regarding the issues involved - the judge has read all of the arguments) and 10 minutes for Q&A (probably to provide Answers to any Questions the judge may have). Then the judge may render a decision on the Motion (which would, in essence throw out the Plaintiff's lawsuit if granted). Now the judge may decide the matter is not an issue for the court but a matter to be determined for the Superintendent of the State Department of Education, in which case (it would appear) that many of the things the former superintendent wants (lots of money and her job - or even more money in lieu of her job) may not be on the table. On the other hand, if somebody (the judge or the Supt. of DOE) decides the School Board did nothing more than their job, the Plaintiff gets nothing (and has caused a lot of personal damage to some individuals who are no longer on the Board as well as some who still are). At that point, certain individuals - or the Board - could file a counter suit against the former superintendent to try to recover damages (meaning money) to both SAD63 AND personally. So - tomorrow's court hearing could be very interesting. It certainly will be important.
The Selectmen and Town Manager rendered compliments to the new Animal Control Officer for responsiveness. A noted improvement has been observed by various parties.
There may be an Eddington town newsletter in the works. Karen Clark has been working up some ideas and potential costs for individuals who wouldn't be able to access the website that is also being developed by Gretchen and (possibly) PVCOG. (My impression is that Gretchen will be the primary developer and PVCOG won't be that much involved.) The newsletter would/could be posted on the website. The Board discussed the possibility of a quarterly newsletter. As a town newsletter, the Board will review and approve it before it is published.
Karen found a printer who could print 1000 for $143.12 and it could be bulk mailed for individuals who wanted a hard copy (or perhaps don't have website access). There was discussion of obtaining ads from local businesses/individuals to cover the cost of printing and mailing but that will have to be reviewed by the town's legal counsel. The town doesn't want any conflict of interest (good) of taking money from anyone/businesses that they might be doing business with at some point - or any appearance of any town position being influenced by an advertiser.
If these additional means of communication in Eddington increase resident attendance at Selectmen and School Board meetings, it would be good. If it increases voter turnout-it would be great!
Gretchen was confirmed as an Alternate to the Planning Board. She will be sworn in at next Tuesday's Planning Board meeting @ 6:30pm. Susan Shane said she'll provide sparkling cider to mark the event. The Shoreland Zoning Map that Gretchen and Craig Russell have developed using some high tech sources (see the comments in a previous blog for the name which I haven't retained - GIS? sorry) will be the topic of the workshop at that Planning Board meeting. Everyone is encouraged to attend, especially if you live or have an interest in the water areas in Eddington.
The motion was made and carried to initiate Condemnation of the building at 41 Monument Drive.
The Chair and Vice Chair for the next year were decided. No Changes. No surprises. No comment.
As a result of the increase in the County Assessment and the current proposed SAD63 budget, there is a possibility that the property tax mill rate may go up 1 mill. The Chairwoman stated that even at 10 mill Eddington would be at one of the lowest rates in the state. That sounds fine unless you happen to have a shoreline year-round residence (or even a camp) on Davis or Chemo Pond where you're charged $800. or $900. a foot as it is before we even talk about the value of your home or the amount of your lot! Where is the incentive of keeping anything other than a dump when you're taxed right off your property as it is?
When asked for more details, the explanation was that the Governor's office (at the time of the mandated consolidation) had determined that the county jail could be run at a maximum of $6 million and therefore the state's funding would be frozen at that figure. BUT - the state didn't take into account the county was able to buy its food at a lower cost than what the state paid (example: the county paid $ .80 for a certain quantity of hamburger buns while the state was paying $1.20 for the same quantity), nor did the state take into account that the new court house downtown necessitated new (additional) transportation costs to get the prisoners from the jail to and from court (whereas before the court was right next to the jail), nor did it take into account the possibility of increased inmate/prisioner population (example: the jail is constructed with 136 beds but is currently housing 212 inmates/prisoners. This brings up all sorts of increased security issues which translate into costs.) HOWEVER, the state has maintained its fixed funding at $6 million so the county is left to raise the additional funding and that means you know who and how. It also seems the crime rate is going up in the county (probably associated to some degree with the current unemployment rate which is not unusual) and that means jail overcrowding may continue = increased cost over-runs.
The good news is the the County Sheriff's Department has received some highway grant monies which will enable our deputy to spend an additional 16-20 hours (a month? I didn't get the time frame) in Eddington specifically on traffic enforcement (speed, seatbelt and O.U.I. enphasis). Of course any revenue generated via fines goes to the state. No comment.
There was a School Board Report. You already have the information via previous blogs. One thing that did come up later in the evening's information is that there will be a hearing at 9am in Federal District Court - Thursday morning the 7th - in Bangor - re: the lawsuit. The judge has limited the hearing to only 30 minutes per side (probably a Summary of why the sides have submitted/oppose the Motion requesting the Summary Judgement - no arguments regarding the issues involved - the judge has read all of the arguments) and 10 minutes for Q&A (probably to provide Answers to any Questions the judge may have). Then the judge may render a decision on the Motion (which would, in essence throw out the Plaintiff's lawsuit if granted). Now the judge may decide the matter is not an issue for the court but a matter to be determined for the Superintendent of the State Department of Education, in which case (it would appear) that many of the things the former superintendent wants (lots of money and her job - or even more money in lieu of her job) may not be on the table. On the other hand, if somebody (the judge or the Supt. of DOE) decides the School Board did nothing more than their job, the Plaintiff gets nothing (and has caused a lot of personal damage to some individuals who are no longer on the Board as well as some who still are). At that point, certain individuals - or the Board - could file a counter suit against the former superintendent to try to recover damages (meaning money) to both SAD63 AND personally. So - tomorrow's court hearing could be very interesting. It certainly will be important.
The Selectmen and Town Manager rendered compliments to the new Animal Control Officer for responsiveness. A noted improvement has been observed by various parties.
There may be an Eddington town newsletter in the works. Karen Clark has been working up some ideas and potential costs for individuals who wouldn't be able to access the website that is also being developed by Gretchen and (possibly) PVCOG. (My impression is that Gretchen will be the primary developer and PVCOG won't be that much involved.) The newsletter would/could be posted on the website. The Board discussed the possibility of a quarterly newsletter. As a town newsletter, the Board will review and approve it before it is published.
Karen found a printer who could print 1000 for $143.12 and it could be bulk mailed for individuals who wanted a hard copy (or perhaps don't have website access). There was discussion of obtaining ads from local businesses/individuals to cover the cost of printing and mailing but that will have to be reviewed by the town's legal counsel. The town doesn't want any conflict of interest (good) of taking money from anyone/businesses that they might be doing business with at some point - or any appearance of any town position being influenced by an advertiser.
If these additional means of communication in Eddington increase resident attendance at Selectmen and School Board meetings, it would be good. If it increases voter turnout-it would be great!
Gretchen was confirmed as an Alternate to the Planning Board. She will be sworn in at next Tuesday's Planning Board meeting @ 6:30pm. Susan Shane said she'll provide sparkling cider to mark the event. The Shoreland Zoning Map that Gretchen and Craig Russell have developed using some high tech sources (see the comments in a previous blog for the name which I haven't retained - GIS? sorry) will be the topic of the workshop at that Planning Board meeting. Everyone is encouraged to attend, especially if you live or have an interest in the water areas in Eddington.
The motion was made and carried to initiate Condemnation of the building at 41 Monument Drive.
The Chair and Vice Chair for the next year were decided. No Changes. No surprises. No comment.
As a result of the increase in the County Assessment and the current proposed SAD63 budget, there is a possibility that the property tax mill rate may go up 1 mill. The Chairwoman stated that even at 10 mill Eddington would be at one of the lowest rates in the state. That sounds fine unless you happen to have a shoreline year-round residence (or even a camp) on Davis or Chemo Pond where you're charged $800. or $900. a foot as it is before we even talk about the value of your home or the amount of your lot! Where is the incentive of keeping anything other than a dump when you're taxed right off your property as it is?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Eddington Selectmen's Meeting -Planning Board Meeting
Tonight, Tuesday the 5th, is the Eddington Selectmen's meeting at 6pm at the Town Office. I'm sipping a cuppa as I write to get the energy up to go.
One week from tonight (the 12th) will be the Planning Board meeting where Gretchen's Shoreland Ordinance map will be on review.
Next week will be busy what with the Public Meeting on Wednesday the 13th for the proposed SAD63 budget for 2009-2010. (Holbrook Middle School @ 7pm). Unless there are some reductions made in the proposed budget between now and then, I can not endorse the proposed budget. Right now it all looks like a Shell Game - and the shell is a bit cracked.
All of you sitting at home with a beer watching TV while a few others determine your tax bill better revisit that thought unless you've got lots of money to spare.
Sure think President Obama better get hopping on those Corporate tax loops 'cause the state of this state seems to think our local tax pockets are pretty deep. Personally, I think there are holes in all our pockets and the money will be running like a spring stream.
More later.
One week from tonight (the 12th) will be the Planning Board meeting where Gretchen's Shoreland Ordinance map will be on review.
Next week will be busy what with the Public Meeting on Wednesday the 13th for the proposed SAD63 budget for 2009-2010. (Holbrook Middle School @ 7pm). Unless there are some reductions made in the proposed budget between now and then, I can not endorse the proposed budget. Right now it all looks like a Shell Game - and the shell is a bit cracked.
All of you sitting at home with a beer watching TV while a few others determine your tax bill better revisit that thought unless you've got lots of money to spare.
Sure think President Obama better get hopping on those Corporate tax loops 'cause the state of this state seems to think our local tax pockets are pretty deep. Personally, I think there are holes in all our pockets and the money will be running like a spring stream.
More later.
Developing News re: SAD63 lawsuit costs
Received a call from an informed source this morning. Based on the information provided it appears that some of the legal costs being incurred by the SAD63 School Board (in its lawsuit re: the former superintendent, Louise Regan) may be due to the ongoing failure of a particular party to produce requested documents and records out of the district administrative office. It seems the Board's lawyers have had to repeatedly call and write letters (spend billable time) to get a district employee to produce district records (still not produced) which has increased the legal costs not to mention increasing the costs relating to court delays and court filings. Perhaps a certain district employee needs to remember she works at the pleasure of the taxpayers - not to mention the possible issue of Obstruction of Justice.
And the School Board Chairman might want to remember that bringing legal communication addressed to the full board should take priority over any personal relationship he may have with Ms. Regan. That means letting the board know immediately - not waiting until the May 18th Board meeting. Such a delay only creates the appearance of him talking to his friend first, thereby giving her time to have her friend in the administrative office take even more evasive action.
There's talking about transparency and there's remembering the responsibilities that come with public duty. The one thing the taxpayers in Eddington, Clifton and Holden do not need is someone who cannot recognize a conflict of interest. Maybe Mr. Varnum needs to be reminded of this - or withdraw from his position of leadership on the Board.
More tomorrow (or tonight) after this afternoon's Citizen's Advisory Boiard meeting where an interesting financial spreadsheet will be reviewed and discussed.
And the School Board Chairman might want to remember that bringing legal communication addressed to the full board should take priority over any personal relationship he may have with Ms. Regan. That means letting the board know immediately - not waiting until the May 18th Board meeting. Such a delay only creates the appearance of him talking to his friend first, thereby giving her time to have her friend in the administrative office take even more evasive action.
There's talking about transparency and there's remembering the responsibilities that come with public duty. The one thing the taxpayers in Eddington, Clifton and Holden do not need is someone who cannot recognize a conflict of interest. Maybe Mr. Varnum needs to be reminded of this - or withdraw from his position of leadership on the Board.
More tomorrow (or tonight) after this afternoon's Citizen's Advisory Boiard meeting where an interesting financial spreadsheet will be reviewed and discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
