It was tight getting to Holbrook School by 6:30 Monday night. I hadn't gotten back to Eddington from the Maine Supreme Court in Portland until 6:05 and needed to make a quick stop at the house before continuing on to the school. (If you want to know how the hearing in Portland went, read the posting just prior to this one.)
The entire School Board was in attendance in the room just past the Library on the second floor at the school. They all sat around the oval table , as well as Interim Superintendent Ray Hart.
The "public" in attendance included Pam Dorr's husband; the SAD 63's Business Manager, Yvonne Mitchell; and this writer.
As soon as the meeting was officially called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence were observed, the Board adjourned to the Superintendent's Office for an Executive Session during which the attorney for the district was going to brief the entire board via phone regarding the hearing in Portland that had occurred that afternoon.
When the Board returned, approximately 30 minutes later, the discussion focused on FINALLY setting up a planning committee to form an RSU. Board Chairman Don Varnum, rep from Holden, stated he had been trying to form an RSU Planning group since September (!!!) - no comment. - He stated since last Tuesday's vote he had received communications from Orrington and Dedham that those school districts were now wiling to sit down with SAD 63 to work out a plan for an RSU.
Varnum stated SAD 63 representatives to the planning group would be: Kevin Mills to represent Holden, Therese Anderson to represent Eddington, and Chris Fickett to represent Clifton. Alternates would be: Varnum for Holden, Karen Clark for Eddington and ??? for Clifton. The problem for appointing an alternate for Clifton is that any alternate must be an existing member of the School Board and Clifton only has one representative. The last time, Karen Clark was designated Alternate for all three towns. Unfortunately, the alternate designation must be made by Board vote and Varnum didn't take care of that piece of business at Monday's meeting.
Therese Anderson tried to get a date for the first meeting set - time and place as well - since Varnum said he was sending out letters of notice to the Town Managers/Boards of Selectmen of Holden, Eddington and Clifton this week. Each of those towns must, by law, designate a selectman and citizen from their town to sit on the planning group. It only stood to reason that if the date of the first group meeting could be included in Varnum's letter, things could get going without delay. (The same information needs to be sent to the Town Managers, Boards of Selectmen, and School Board Chairmen of Orrington, Dedham, etc.) Varnum let Anderson's urging go totally unacknowledged. Anderson then said that the first meeting should be held No Later Than DECEMBER 10. She also pointed out that, because of the shortness of time, planning group meetings may need to be conducted twice a week from that point on considering the pending holiday schedule. All assigned school board planning group reps and alternates stated they would be available.
Varnum had already drafted up a Letter of Intent to send to the Commissioner of Education indicating Orrington and Dedham as potential "partners" which he showed to the Board.
The question was raised as to whether CSD 8 (Airline) should also be invited to participate in the discussion. Varnum reminded the Board that Airline had had a large "team" on the old planning group (when the discussion included consolidating with Brewer). (Writer's note: Apparently Airline had walked away from the previous RSU planning group, going over to check out consolidating with Ellsworth. Then they returned to the SAD 63/Brewer talks and were less than happy then, as well. This time there was not enough time for indecisive behavior.) Then Varnum suggested maybe Airline could be limited to sending just 1 selectmen and 1 citizen to the planning group. Therese Anderson pointed out that the law stated that each town was supposed to send 1 selectman and 1 citizen as well as the school board sending 1 representative from each town that the current board included. (For Airline, that meant 12 people should be included in the planning group.) Varnum clearly said "well, maybe we can just ignore the law." (!) Anderson was visibly upset by Varnum's remark. She said the law clearly stated how the planning group was to be comprised and that Varnum couldn't just limit Airline's representation in that group. Again, Varnum said he thought they could forget the law. Fortunately Anderson stuck to her guns.
This writer has a significant concern that if there is not a watchful eye as to how the planning group works and doesn't pay attention to how the new RSU is formed through its Articles of Incorporation, individuals like Varnum will try to circumvent not only the laws but the rights and best interests of ALL PARTIES. This writer strongly believes the Articles of Incorporation should be clear in requiring that the Chair of the new RSU Board rotate yearly amongst the towns represented by the Board (and the Vice Chair be from a different town, with the Vice Chair one year to succeed to the position of Chair the following year).
There was no mention of the town of Otis being included in the planning group until Karen Clark, rep from Eddington, specifically raised the issue. Mr. Hart wasn't even aware of the geographical location of the town of Otis until it was explained to him by Anderson. Varnum said Otis would be sent an invitational letter to the planning group meeting. Hart said having Otis involved would be good because that might be beneficial to those students living at the far end of Clifton - that they might be able to attend the school in Otis (because it would be a shorter transportation distance). (!)
A suggestion was made that a possible clause could be added in the initial RSU agreement that no schools would be closed for the first three years to allow for the Board of settle in and people to adjust to the consolidation.
Hart seemed to think that Ms. Mitchell had most of the consolidation budget numbers ready (which was not the impression of some of the Board members). One wonders if that means we'll have another year of multiple months where the Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) doesn't receive monthly financial reports.....
It also appears that during the BFC meeting that preceded the Special Meeting of the Board, Mr. Hart stated the following financial status: There will be a SHORTFALL of $140,000 in the current 2009-2010 (presumably from the state). In fiscal year there will be a $340,000 SHORTFALL in addition to the penalty (if SAD 63 does not consolidate) of $167,000. So, of course there is that much more pressure (aka threat) to consolidate. You notice taxpayers were not provided with this financial information BEFORE voters were voting for/against TABOR last week. Do you find this a bit interesting???
The question did come up re: the teachers contract negotiations. Hart stated the Orrington teachers are paid at a lower rate than the SAD 63 teachers and that the leveling out of all rates might ease up (for Orrington) over three years. In the meantime, he suggested the SAD 63 teachers might have to go a year without a contract. Anderson pointed out that the SHORTFALL situation was going to make contract negotiation "ugly" for everyone. Interesting that no one seems to thinks that, from the taxpayer's point of view, it's been ugly for some time. This writer pointed out (at the Public Hearing re: the school budget last year) we were all warned that there would be another $90,000,000.00 SHORTFALL for education in 2011 and SAD 63 needed to stop thinking each year could be more expensive that the year before. WIth the exception of Karen Clark from Eddington, none of the Board and no one from Central Office wanted to hear that and turned a deaf ear. (I didn't have a crystal ball then. Sure don't need one now.) Don't suppose anyone wanted to hear that the SAD 63 budget went up $800,000 in the last two years either since people seldom attend the Public Hearing and the few "no" votes that were cast were from Eddington and Clifton.
BOTTOM LINE RE: THIS RSU PLANNING GROUP: Towns need to get their teams ready - and start pushing Varnum for a date, time and place for the RSU planning meeting - for the first week in December. According to Hart, voters/taxpayers need to do their official and final VOTE by mid-February at the latest.
Between now and then this is what needs to happen:
1. Each town needs to assign its Selectman and citizen to the planning group (and alternates);
2. Each School Board needs to designate each town's Board representative (and alternate);
3. The Planning Group needs to formulate how the RSU would work (budget, central office staffing, each town's student population and designated school with related systems and services), etc.;
4. Prepare public presentations to be made in each town to explain how the RSU would work and related costs (projected town assessments and any contingencies agreed upon by the group - PLUS whatever has already been approved by the Commissioner of Education);
5. Make public presentations (which will require promotion and support from local Boards of Selectmen to encourage public attendance);
6. Group "tweeking" of any high negative issues raised at/from presentations which might prevent voter approval;
7. Town Voting (mid-February);
8. Candidate declarations for new RSU Board seats; (two weeks after voting)
9. New Candidate elections; (?? after declarations)
10. New RSU ready to go by July 1, 2010
There is certainly not very much time between now and mid-February - and there is one heck of a lot of work to do in steps 1-9.
No comments:
Post a Comment