WHY THE VETERANS MEMORIAL SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO HOLDEN

After talking with some Eddington and Cliften residents, I don't think the Veterans Memorial at the Holden School should be transferred to the Town of Holden. That site should stay within SAD63 - more specifically, it belongs to the students of SAD63 (and any RSU we may become).

Perhaps a little history is needed for the benefit of the members of the School Board, as well as the citizens of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. The Students of the Holbrook Middle School conducted spaghetti dinners, yard sales, and a variety of other fund-raisers to make that Memorial become a reality. The Students submitted a grant proposal to Walmart specifically for the purpose of creating the Memorial and Walmart answered that call. The Dedication Ceremony for the Memorial was planned and conducted by the Students. I clearly remember the television stations that covered that ceremony and how the stationed focused on the work the students had done to make the project become a reality.

There is no way that effort should be given away. The Memorial (and the land on which it stands) belongs to the students who made it happen. It is a tribute to them and their civic efforts. And it belongs to all the students who will follow in their wake.

The Town of Holden may claim it paid last year for the replacement of the flags that fly at the Memorial, but I'm told the replacement flags were smaller than the original flags and a private citizen replaced the "replacement" flags with others of the correct size. What I don't understand is why SAD63 didn't pay for any replacement flags needed. The 2007-2008 SAD63 Audit shows a private trust fund with over $4,000.00 for scholarships and other purposes. No money was expended from that account during 2007-2008. Perhaps that fund could be used for any flags needed at the Memorial.

Some may ask how the Memorial (and the land on which it stands) might be affected under any consolidation? Seems to this writer that When and If any SAD63 RSU Committee is ever appointed, the committee can specify the land on which the Memorial stands will always belong to the RSU and the Memorial shall be maintained by the RSU.

Bottom Line: The Veterans Memorial was the idea and created by the students of SAD63. It belongs to the students in perpetuity (forever) as a tribute to both the Veterans and the students that came from and will come from all three towns. It should not be transferred - because it belongs to the students. Should there be consolidation at some point, and students from outside our three towns attend (or visit) any of the current SAD63 schools, the example of the Holbrook students will stand as an example of civic responsibility and respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Liberty and Freedom.

The School Board should respect our students enough to not give away that example.

THE ISSUE IS LAND - NOT THE OLD RSU PROPOSAL

It has taken me these past few days to formalize my thoughts (with the help of friends) re: the issue of the Town of Holden's request for the SAD63 School Board to transfer certain parcels of land currently a part of the Holden Elementary School to the Town of Holden.

This issue has been going on for several months. It almost culminated at this past Monday night's School Board meeting and Holden Councilman Harvey certainly expected it would.

However, while the Town of Holden had reportedly sent its formal and legally prepared proposal to School Board Chairman Varnum a month ago, none of the Board members received it until the Tuesday prior to the Board meeting. And neither the Eddington nor Clifton Boards of Selectpersons had received it. As a result of that delay, neither the School Board nor Eddington nor Clifton had had the opportunity to have their legal counsels review the proposal nor consider the opinions of their constituencies.

Not only are those steps important, they are legally required. Without these steps, the towns of Eddington and Clifton could file suit against the School Board. Regardless of an opinion expressed by Interim Superintendent Hart at the Monday meeting (that Board members are elected to make such decisions), there are legal precedents that would give Eddington and Clifton grounds to file legal action (a.k.a. a law suit) against the School Board should the it vote away the property in question without first consulting with the Boards of Selectpersons of Eddington and Clifton. And "consulting does not mean listing "Holden Town Deed" on the Board's Agenda, regardless of comments by Board Member Ellis (rep from Holden). And that was how the issue listed, with no indication that there was any intent of a final vote planned - not to mention that the formal documents had not been sent to the Selectpersons of Eddington or Clifton.

So, let's look at the Town of Holden's Proposal and then ask a few questions.

The proposal has been set forth in the form of a Release Deed, which states as follows:

"SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT #63, located at Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, for consideration paid, released to the INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF HOLDEN, a municipality located in Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, all of the District's right, title or interest in and to the land and any improvements thereon located in Holden, Penobscot County, Maine, described as follows:

A certain lot or parcel of land with buildings wnd improvements thereon situated on the northerly side of Main Road (a.k.a. U.S. Route IA) in the Town of Holden, County of Penobscot, State of Maine and being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at a point on the northerly sideline of said Main Road, which point is further described as being the southeasterly corner of land now of the Inhabits (sic) the Town of Holden as described in a deed recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2595, Page 20;

Thence N 20 degrees 53' 44" E by and along the easterly line of land of the Inhabitants of the Town of Holden as described in Volume 2595, Page 20, a distance of 1132.34 feet to a point on the southerly line of land now or formerly of Granville Jennings as described in a deed recorded as the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in volumn 3839, Page 254;

Thence S 71 degrees 47' 08" E by and along the southerly line of land of said Granville Jennings, a distance of 801.86 feet to an iron rod found at the northeasterly corner of land of School Administrative District #63 as described in a deed from the Maine School Building Authority to School Administrative District #63, which deed is recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2529, Page 115, said point is further described as being on the northwesterly line of land now or formerly of Philip Robinson as described in a deed recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 3518, Page 193;

Thence S 31 degrees 08' 46" W by and along the northwesterly line of land of said Philip Robinson, a distance of 507.14 feet to a point on said line;

Thence N 61 degrees 09' 31" W, a distance of 262.78 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set'

Thence continuing on the same course N 61 degrees 09' 31" W, a distance of 174.15 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;

Thence S 32 degrees 28' 29" W, a distance of 202.92 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;

Thence S 10 degrees 57' 54" E, a distance of 125.34 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set;

Thence S 25 degrees 47' 19" W, a distance of 219.71 feet to a #6 rebar with an aluminum cap stamped "PLS 1030" set near the left field corner of the ballfield;

Thence S 38 degrees 51' 28" W, a distance of 224.04 feet to a point on the northerly sideline of said Main Road;

Thence running in a mortherly direction by and along the northerly sideline of said Main Road following a 2503.72 foot radius curve to the left, an arc distance of 215.75 feet to the point of beginning.

EXCEPTING AND RESERVING to the Grantor, its successors and assigns, an easement to maintain, repair, replace and use the existing parking area encroaching onto the above described parcel as depicted on a survey plan dated Octobet 23, 2008 prepared by Plisga & Day, Land Surveyors, being further identified as Project 90228.

THis conveyance is made expressly subject to the right of the Grantor to requwst reconveyances to it of portions of the above described portions of the above descrived parcel, or easements thereon, upon 4evidencing a need for use of such portions or easements for school purpowes, including but not limited to the replacement or expansion of the subsurface wastewater disposal system serving Grantor's remaining land or the construction of additional educational facilities. Provided, however that the right reserved to Grantor shall not apply to any portion of the conveyed property, which at the time of any such request, is being used by the Grantee for municipal purposes (emphasis added by this writer) or for other purposes for which the consent of the Grantor has been obtained or to any other portion as may have been conveyed by the Grantee with the consent of the Grantor.

The above described lot or parcel of land contains 12.14 acres, more or less, and is a portion of the premises desribed in a deed from the Maine School Building Authority to School Administrate Diwtrict #63, dated February 24, 1975 and recorded at the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Volume 2529 , Page 115 and a portion of the premises described in a deed from Richard C. Cook to School Administrative District #63, dated August 15, 1988 and recorded at the Penobscot COunty Registry of Deeds in Volume 4290, Page 50.

Bearings referenced herein are oriented to True North and are based on a survey dated October 23, 2008 by PLISGA & DAY, Land SUrbeyors, and said survey is further identified as Project No. 90228.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, School Administrative District #63 has caused this instrument to be executed and delivered by ______, its Superintendent, this ___ day of _____. 2009.

And there follows Notoary Public Signature veification...

ATTACHED TO THE RELEASE DEED IS THE FOLLOWING - JOINT USE AGREEMENT - :

This Agreement is entered into by and between MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT #63 ("District") and the TOWN OF HOLDEN ("Town") as of the ___ day of ________, 2009.


RECITALS

A. Town conveyed a parcel of land to the Maine School Building Authority ("Authority") by deed dated May 29, 1954, recorded in the Penboscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 1444, age 248.

B. The Authority conveyed the same parcel of land to the District by deed dated February 24, 1975, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 2529, Page 115.

C. District conveyed a portion of the parcel to Town by deed dated October 9, 1975, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 2595, Page 20.

D. District released its remaining interest in the parcel conveyed to Town by deed dated June 23, 2008, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 11457, Page 229.

E. District acquired an additional parcel of land from Richard C. Cook by deed dated August 15, 1988, recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds in Book 4290, Page 50.

F. District has agreed to convey 12.14 acres of its property to Town, as shown on a survey dated October 23, 2008, prepared by Plisga & Day, Landy Surveyors, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter the "Property").

G. District has traditionally used the ball field and appurtenances thereto located on the Property, as shown on the survey plan, for school purposes, and the parties desire to enter into this Agreement to allow the continuation of that use.

H. Town has traditionally used said ball fields and appurtenances thereto as part of its recreational programs.

I. Town has also agreed to allow the District to use the Town's ajacent property for overflow parking for school events.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Town shall continue to provide overall maintenance and repair of the ball field and the associated improvements (including the dugouts and chain-link fencing).

2. District shall be permitted to provide supplemental maintenanmce and repair of the ball field and associated improvements.

3. District shall have priority for the use of the ball field and associated improvements during the school year. District, through the Principal of Holden School (or designee) shall consult with Town's Manager (or designee) concerning the scheduling of any school usage of that facility during the school year, and the coordination of any Town usage of the same during the school year.

4. During school summer vacation, Town shall have the priority for the use of the ball field and associated improvements for its recreational programs. Town, through its Town Manager (or designee), shall consult with Holden School's Principal (or designee) concerning the scheduling of Town usage of that facility during the school summer vacation, and the coordination of and school usage of that facility during school vacation.

5. Both District and Town shall retain any immunities from liabilities available to them under Maine law, or any other source.

6. Any proposals relating to major repair or replacement of the existing recreational facilities on the Property, or the development of new recreational facilities on the Property, shall be presented by the proposing party to the other party for review. If the proposed improvements are to be jointly used by the parties, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to develop an agreement on the funding and maintenance of such improvements, and any necessary or appropriate amendments to this Agreement. If the Town proposes the improvements and the District does not elect to utilize the same for school purposes, Town shall be responsible for the payment for, and the maintenance of, the improvements. If District proposes the improvements and Town approves them, but does not elect to utilize the same ofr municipal purposes, District shall be responsible for the payment for, and the maintenance of, the improvements.

7. District shall have the right to use any parking areas onthe Parperty, or on ajacent property owned by the TOwn, for overflow parking for any school events. The Principal (or designee) and the Town Manager (or Designee) shall consult on the Scheduling of major events by either party in an attempt to avoid conflicting demands for parking.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf, in duplicate counterparts, as of the date first above written.

TOWN OF HOLDEN

Signatures from Holden Town Manager and MSAD#63 Superintendent (with witnesses)

So NOW MY QUESTIONS AND THOUGHTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

Let's be clear about what is currently occupying the Property Holden wants conveyed from SAD63 to the Town of Holden. Aside from degrees and measurements, What are we really talking about? (According to Councilman Harvey, in his mostly one-way conversation with me in the parking lot outside the Holbrook School, the Veterans Memorial, the Nature Walk trails, the supplementary parking lot [that SAD63 just paved at the mandate of the Town of Holden at a Taxpayer cost of $40,000], and the ball field are all on the 12.14 acres of Property to be conveyed if this proposal is approved.)

1. How did this Property come to be part of SAD63 in the first place? Councilman Harvey told me that the Property in question originally belonged to Holden. There is reference to parcels of the Property originally belonging to Granville Jennings and Philip Robinson in the Release Deed.

If taxpayers ("Taxpayers") from the towns of Eddington, Clifton and Holden had to compensate either individuals or the Town of Holden for the Property to become part of SAD63, then some form of compensation to the Taxpayers should be made in exchange for releasing the property to the Town of Holden, even if some form of shared usage results.

2. There is nothing in the Release Deed or Recitals that guarantees the Property will be held by the Town of Holden for Public Access, meaning that it will not be sold to a third party or used for exclusive town business purposes. While there were verbal assurances by individuals at the School Board meetings, without the guarantee in writing, there is no legal binding. Additionally, note the caveat the Town of Holden has included in the "Excepting and Reserving" section of the Release Deed (highlighted in red by this writer). What safeguard is there for Taxpayers that the Town of Holden will not convert any portion for a "municipal purpose" such as an additional municipal building.

3. The Veterans Memorial is included in the Property to be conveyed to the Town of Holden. The Memorial was created through fund-raising efforts by the eighth-grade students at Holbrook Middle School. While there may be some discussion as to the fiscal responsibility for flag replacement at the Memorial, the Memorial was clearly the result of SAD63 students. Should the ground on which the Memorial stands be separated from SAD63 property?

4. The Nature Walk trails are part of the property to be conveyed to the Town of Holden. Councilman Harvey told me the trails are maintained by Holden volunteers. He also stated that the trails were created by financial grants. (My impression was he intended to infer the trails were not developed by SAD63 Taxpayers.) If the grant applications suggested or flatly stated the trails would benefit the education of SAD63 students, the grantors may have elected to fund the Nature Walk trails because of the school district association and because the trails were on the property of the Holden Elementary School.

5. For all of the Taxpayers funding (for maintenance, improvements, taxes, insurances, etc.) since the Property became part of SAD63, some form of compensation to the Taxpayers should be issued by the Town of Holden for the Release Deed proportionate to any agreement of joint use and authorization of control.

6. FINALLY, in no way does the argument of the former RSU discussion apply to this issue. The OLD RSU proposal dealt with the potential consolidation with Brewer and an RSU Board that would have had a significant representation from the community. It was for that reason many issues regarding land associated with the Eddington, Holbrook and Holden schools were discussed. The OLD RSU proposal was soundly defeated and is dead. DEAD. Off the table. Even though there have been individuals who have tried to get the School Board Chairman to appoint a NEW RSU Committee to get started, nothing has been done. The only things that have been done is TALK. The current Interim Superintendent firmly believes SAD63 will consolidate with someone in the coming year. There is "TALK" that SAD63 may enter consolidation discussion with Dedham or Orrington or Otis (depending on how Otis votes on September 9), but one thing is sure - IF SAD63 CONSOLIDATES with anyone, it will be a K-8 plan with an on-going high school option. And that's the only RSU aspect that's applicable to any discussion.

Therefore, why the rush to give away any SAD63 land? There isn't even an RSU committee to discuss any potential consolidation. The State of Maine voters may vote to repeal consolidation altogether in November, in which case SAD63 will stay exactly the way it is. So why give away the very land SAD63 currently has before we know if we will be consilidating with anyone.

The only reason I can see for the rush is because the Town of Holden, particularly Councilman Harvey, wants the land for whatever reason the Town of Holden may have.

The TAXPAYERS of SAD63 are the ones who should be making this decision. Can we be sure how our communities will be growing or evolving over the next 10 years? Do we know how the change in Route 9 will impact the need for the Property in question or the need for the Holden School to be able to expand? For sure the Towns of Eddington and Clifton need to be active participants in this decision and their representatives on the School Board need to know how their constituents feel before any vote is taken.

GOOD NEWS

First the Tax News:

At the SAD63 School Board meeting tonight, it was announced by Interim Superintendent Hart that notices have been sent out to all three Town Managers stating the previous assessments for the 2009-2010 School Budget have been reduced. This is because the $163,000 penalty by the state was rescinded per the Legislature/Governor and the State will be paying this amount to the school district. Therefore, even though the voters approved the higher assessment this past June, the Board is honoring the position it took in June (that the budget total would be reduced, along with the towns' assessments, if the state rescinded the penalty). Bottom line: Our tax bills shouldn't be as high as they would have been if the Board hadn't honored its commitment.

Thank you, School Board.

*****

That which was taken has been returned. The two signs that were taken without authorization yesterday, as reported in yesterday's blog, were returned to the Town Office today. Deputy Darren Mason was notified and the case has been closed.

*****

More School Board Meeting news. The School Board approved a two-year snow plowing bid, in the amount of $26,300, for all three schools to S.F. Eastman of Bucksport. Therese Anderson (rep from Eddington) asked if it was wise to commit to a two-year contract if the District is going to become an RSU. It was explained by the Operations Manager that the second year of the contract would be the only year that would be impacted by an RSU and it would take one item off the table for a beginning RSU Board that will have plenty to do that first year. The Board agreed with the explanation. It was pointed out by Karen Clark (rep from Eddington) that this was the first time in many years that she could recall a bidder wanting to meet with the committee taking bids in order to ask questions, look at the properties that would need to be plowed, and to assure the committee members that the plowing, sanding and salting as needed would be done whether school was in session or on vacation.

There was no Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) meeting in August because there wasn't a quorum. Seems Member Ellis (rep from Holden) was out on a lake kayaking. As a result the Audit Report for 2007-2008, produced in July by the Audit firm, was not released to the Board since it had not been "approved" by the BFC Committee. The next BFC meeting will be Sept. 9 at Holbrook School. (Note: That will be 15 months after the close of the fiscal year audited.) Mario Teisl (rep from Holden) is back from vacation and will resume the position of BFC Chair.

There will be a Curriculum Committee meeting sometime in October. Meeting dates were set for dates in September for the Policy committee, the Technology committee, and the Operations committee which meets right before the School Board.

Chairman Varnum and Interim Superintendent Hart will be sending out letters of interest to various town managers, selectmen and individuals who may be interested in serving on an RSU committee. I wonder how much time these ultimate committee members will be expected to devote to developing a proposal townspeople are expected to approve before when - January 2010? It was noted that state law requires representation on an RSU Committee from the School Boards of any towns interested in consolidating, elected officials from those towns and private citizens. Anyone interested? Contact Russell Smith, Town Manager from Eddington - or your own Town Manager or the District Office and leave a message for Mr. Hart. Varnum noted Kevin Mills (rep from Holden) and Karen Clark (rep from Eddington) have both expressed interest in serving on the committee. Both Varnum (rep from Holden) and Hart indicated they will serve on the committee. Fickett is the only rep on the school board from Clifton.

The next School Board meeting will be October 26 at the Eddington School - 6:30pm.

Attendees at tonight's meeting: Pam Dorr, Therese Anderson, Kevin Mills, Chris Fickett, Don Varnum, Raymond Hart, Sylvia Ellis, Mario Teisl, and Karen Clark. Mrs. Dorr needed to leave early and therefor missed the lengthy discussion re: the transfer of property to Holden currently a part of the Holden School grounds and held as property of SAD63. This property includes the Nature Trails, the Veterans Memorial, and more. Because members of Clifton's and Eddington's Selectmen and Town Manager were not present for the discussion and subsequent vote, the matter was tabled until the October 26 meeting. There seems to be a serious need for people of all three towns to be clear about what this transfer is about and the ramifications of doing or not doing what Holden is requesting. While the issue was somewhat clear when consolidation with Brewer was on the table, the issue is different now (since that RSU plan was voted down by all three towns). It doesn't help when the only School Board members who appear to be pushing for this transfer are representatives from Holden.

I will try to obtain a copy of the proposed documents and print them here - word for word - for viewers to decide and communicate their feelings/position to their elected representatives (school board or selectman).

There were no Financial Reports available for the School Board or members of the public. The Business Office is currently preparing/finalizing financial documents to be turned over to the Auditors in order for them to begin the 2008-2009 Audit. Hopefully that audit will begin by the end of September. The reason given for no Financial Statements since May is that the June (year-end) reports are in the process of being done and would not have been ready until after the School Board went on vacation in July. And the July reports are "in process" but neither the June or July reports could have been reviewed by the BFC because there wasn't a quorum at the August meeting anyway. One will hope the BFC plans for a Looong meeting in September because they will have three monthly reports to review in addition to the 2007-2008 Audit and any related documents to process. They should be busy.

PERSPECTIVE FROM AFAR

I received a long email today from a friend in Oregon who reads the blog regularly. Of course, since she, too, is a writer we share long emails from time to time about writing, family, frustrations, political perspectives, etc. I thought one of her recent comments interesting (and something only a friend would write) when she pointed out that the people in Afghanistan are dying for the right to vote - are suffering the loss of their purple stained fingers (a sign of having voted) to the Taliban - and here I am writing about the blatant apathy of the people here in our small town who can't be bothered to vote in local elections. It's no wonder our so-called elected representatives feel no obligation to comply with guidelines mandated by the voters. So few voters will ever know what the Selectmen do since hardly any of them ever attend a Selectmen's meeting. And the Selectmen never publish their actions to the voters.

(I thought the Selectmen's agenda and meeting Minutes were going to be published on the town's Website. What happened? Did they block that? The quarterly newsletter certainly won't publish that information since everything in the newsletter has to be approved by the Selectmen before it goes to print.)

When the subject of the Eddington newsletter came up, along with the contest to choose the newsletter's name from several names submitted by readers for consideration, the Chair (not too subtly) stated she'd prefer the name of the newsletter to be the Eddington News and then complained because it couldn't. (God forbid it sound as though the town government was promoting this blog. :-). Those who tarry, lose, Madam Chair.) Readers can go back to the first posting to see why this blog was started in the first place and who made it necessary. But "Don't cry for me, Argentina."

*****

There were LOTS of homemade jellies, fudge, fresh vegetables and perennials at Virginia Doyle's table at the Farmers' Market this morning. And Lore, the Market organizer had lots of company at her table including Joan Brooks, Selectmen Chair. There appeared to be maybe four vendor tables with goods for sale.


Unfortunately, two of the three signs posted along Route 9 in East Eddington promoting the Sunday Farmers' Market were taken by an unauthorized person sometime after 1pm (and before 1:15pm). One was taken from in front of the Eddington Post Office. The second was taken from in front of the New Hope Hospice. All six signs, which are placed along Route 9 each Sunday morning before 10am, are the personal property of this writer. The aluminum A-Frames, to which the posters are attached, are the personal property of a friend who lives in Clifton and were loaned to this writer only for the time period of this year's Farmers' Market.

A theft report was filed with the Penobscot County Sheriff''s Department shortly after 1:30pm today when it was determined that the signs had been removed.

*****

Tomorrow night's School Board Meeting (6:30pm at Holbrook Middle School) should have several items of interest to parents and the public alike. There are new teachers to be introduced, the District 2007-08 Audit was received after the Board went on vacation in July, and a proposal from the Town of Holden to take over certain parcels of school district property which the towns of Eddington and Clifton have opposed in the past are just a few items. And then there are the issues of who (if anyone) is going to be appointed to the District's RSU and teacher contract negotiations committees.

It will be interesting to see how the School Board intends to explain the authority the Interim Superintendent thought he had to give the new Part-Time librarian at Holbrook School a Full-Time position. When the budget was proposed to the voters last May, it was clearly explained that the previous volunteer position was being proposed to be changed to a part-time paid position. That is what the voters approved. The voters did not approve a full-time position. A full-time position requires additional compensation and benefits which were not approved in the budget. How does the Interim Superintendent have the authority, without either School Board or voter approval, to change the budget or the position? Don't voters (aka taxpayers) have any authority in these towns? - other than the forced responsibility to pay the ever-increasing bill???

One can hope members of the Eddington and Clifton Boards of Selectmen will be in attendance to represent their respective taxpayer residents. It would behoove the members of the School Board to remember that it is the taxpayer residents of all three towns who do pay the bills associated with the School District.

HOT FLASH - NO BLUES TODAY

The Blues and Brews Fest scheduled today in West Market Square has been cancelled. Weather projections call for Thunder Storms in Bangor with possible lightning. Safety concerns have caused the sponsors to cancel. All those electrical wires for the bands coming in contact with that kind of weather could light up folks a bit more than anyone would enjoy.

Oh well, there's still Woody Woodson at Clewley's and the Turkey dinner at Comins Hall for entertainment tonight. And both places will be well under cover.

SAD63 SCHOOL BOARD MEETING MONDAY

The first School Board meeting for the new school year will be held this coming Monday night at the Holdbrook Middle School. Meeting will begin at 6:30pm.

Some of the items of business residents of Eddington, Clifton and Holden should be looking for will be the appointment of members to two important committees:

(1) An RSU committee needs to get started working if anyone truly expects the voters to approve consolidation with any other community or communities if the November Referendum fails to rescind consolidation. Remember, the bill the governor signed to defer penalties for districts that haven't consolidated is only for this fiscal year. For SAD63, that amount was $163,000 this year and the amount could go up in future years. Add to that, the state plans to further reduce its contribution to existing school districts by an additional $60 million in 2010-2011.

SAD63 Interim Superintendent Hart has stated his belief that SAD63 will consolidate in this coming year. One has to wonder why Board Chairman Varnum hasn't appointed an RSU committee to be working on a draft plan over the Summer months. Some think Orrington is interested in consolidating with SAD63. Otis has already expressed an interest but they have very few students and would probably have to be bused to the schools in SAD63. Orrington's student base, combined with SAD63's student base would probably meet the required number for a state approval. But there are issues in SAD63 that our voters will probably require to be resolved before any consolidation will be approved. It's time to get going.

(2) A teachers contract negotiation team. It will be interesting to see who Chairman Varnum appoints to this team. Members Anderson, Dorr (from Eddington) and Teisl (from Holden) are all teachers which precludes them from being on the committee, even though members in other unions than the one with which SAD63 will be negotiating. Since Member Fickett (from Clifton) has already expressed his time constraints, it is unlikely he will be available for the committee. That leaves Board Members Ellis and Clark (from Holden and Eddington respectively) who have previous negotiating team experience, Chairman Varnum (from Holden), and new member Mills (from Holden). Since Member Mills has already expressed his desire to be on the RSU team, as has Member Clark, it will be interesting to see how this team is formed.

One thing for sure, some trade-offs need to be the end result in the next contract. If teachers want to have the taxpayers pay for classes toward advanced degrees, which are usually the responsibility of the student, then the teachers need to be prepared to off-set those increased taxpayer costs. More and more employees are paying a higher percentage of medical benefits in the form of co-payments or percentage of employee premium contributions. This should certainly be on the table.

Whoever is appointed, the SAD63 negotiating team needs to remember they are representing the taxpayers of three towns, two of which are not high-income towns and where there are a relatively low percentage of students compared to the overall populations which are trying to live on fixed incomes.

SATURDAY'S BLUES

This coming Saturday, August 22, is the FIRST ANNUAL BLUES AND BREWS FESTIVAL.

From 4pm-9pm, the place to be will be the West Market Square in downtown Bangor. The event is FREE. Performing will be the Mark "Guitar" Miller Blues Band, Eric Green's Blues Party, Mike Billings Big Time Blues and a Special Appearance of "The Dogs."

There will be an Outdoor Beer garden where $10.00 buys 10 beer samples. It's still unknown the total number of breweries participating, but for sure All Shipyard brands, the Atlantic Brewing Company, Winterport Brews and Seadog Brewing will be there.

The event is being sponsored by BangorMetro Magazine and the Whig and Courier Restaurant. Sounds like a good time and the word is it's going to happen Rain or Shine.

*****

For those who don't feel like leaving Eddington this coming weekend, there's going to be a Turkey Dinner at Comins Hall Saturday Night, part of the on-going Fundraising there; and Woody Woodman will be performing at Clewley Farm Restaurant that same night.

BTW, Clewley Farm Restaurant will be serving a Buffet Menu Saturday night when Woody performs. Because the crowds have been so large on past "performer's nights", (and they stay from food 'til the show closes the place), it's been hard to get people in and seated who want to eat. So it's pay at the door for everyone - $12.95 per person. That gets you the Buffet AND the show (and the restaurant isn't losing money in the process). Remember, the entertainers get paid regardless of how many people eat or how much they eat or drink. If we want to have continuing live entertainment at the restaurant, we need to support their cost of doing business. Besides, we get a good meal in the process.

*****

There was more business conducted at Tuesday Meeting of the Town's Selectmen than I wrote up yesterday. But I'm still so steamed about how they just ignored what the voters instructed the Selectmen to do regarding the application of any grants and acceptance of grant funds (see yesterday's blog) that I'm going to put off until tomorrow to write up the rest of my notes. I usually weed to work out frustrations. I've been weeding since Tuesday night. I can only be thankful the weather has cooled down because I sure haven't. No wonder people just give up and don't bother to participate in government in this town. The so-called elected "representatives" apparently don't feel any responsibility to what the voters say or how they vote so why should the registered voters waste their time (other than to vote out such a crowd). Looks like we've got our own Little Augusta right here.

*****

The Farmers' Market will be closed on Labor Day. But then it will re-open the following Sunday and continue to be open on Sundays from 10am-1pm until Closing Day, September 27. Maybe with the good weather we've had this past week we'll see some fresh vegetables at the Market this coming Sunday.

EDDINGTON SELECTMEN'S MEETING - TOWN MEETING VOTE IGNORED

I'll admit I haven't been at the last one or two meetings of the Eddington Board of Selectmen. But it's a good thing I was in attendance last night. Otherwise there would probably have been no notification to Eddington voters and taxpayers that the Board unanimously elected to ignore the vote and will of the people who attended the Annual Town Meeting last March. I say this based on the principle that the people's vote IS the governing authority and not the will of the elected body.

In case you weren't at that Town Meeting - and particularly if you were - Article 11, as originally written for the people's vote, was amended and passed. I wrote about the event on this blog following the Town Meeting. The following is what I wrote:

Article 11: generated discussion resulting in a motion for an Amendment which passed 25/21 (with a requested hand count). The issue had to do with the Selectmen applying for and/or accepting state and federal grants and nonprofit organization grants and having the authority to accept same and the conditions that come along with them as well as appropriating and expending the grant funds. The Amendment, which was added to the end of the article, reads as follows: "with the understanding that no grants may be accepted or applied for which will obligate the residents to long-term commitments unless approved by the town at a specially called town meeting in advance." The Article was Passed with the Amendment.

So it was with interest that I listened to Fire Chief Ellis's report during which he stated that he had, at some point in the past, submitted a grant proposal to Americorp on behalf of the towns of Holden and Eddington for sufficient funding for a firefighter position (per town) and that both towns had been chosen to be recipients of Americorp grants. The grant (per town) is for an 11 month position with funding for 40 hour weeks plus workers compensation and other benefits. However, the recipients of the grants are required to provide a matching amount of funding which the Fire Chief stated would total $8,900. According to Eddington's Town Manager, the position would begin effective October 2009, which means only four months of the position will be funded out of the current town budget and seven months will be required to be funded from the 2010-2011 budget. That budget has not even been reviewed or approved by the townspeople.

I would not like to think it was because I was sitting there in plain view of the entire Board (or because it was a member of my family who proposed that particular amendment or because I was the individual who ended up writing the final version of the approved amendment) that the Chair of the Board, with a less than respectful tone, asked if the Board would have to call a special meeting of the town to accept the grant.

The Town Manager stated that there are sufficient funds in the current fiscal year's year's budget Reserve to pay for the first four months (October - January). He further stated, because he did not consider the seven months in fiscal year 2010-2011 "a long-term commitment", he did not believe there was any need to call the required special town meeting. And so, all five members of the Board voted to accept the Americorp grant.

My issues:

1.It is unlikely that the Fire Chief failed to communicate with the Board of Selectmen some time ago that he intended to apply for the Americorp grant. Under the terms of Article 11, the special town meeting should have been called prior to any submission of the grant request. Some might say that Chief Ellis was not aware of the Article 11 requirement; however, the Eddington Deputy Fire Chief should have been aware. He was in attendance at the March Town Meeting. And it is reasonable to expect the Fire Chief spoke with either the Deputy Chief and/or the Town Manager and/or the Board of Selectmen prior to submitting the grant proposal, if only to obtain a signature representing the town.

2. Perhaps seven months of the next fiscal year does not constitute a "long-term commitment" except -when September 2010 comes along, does the Fire Chief and/or the Board of Selectmen plan to terminate/eliminate that firefighter position? Because, unless they do, this is exactly what the discussion was about at the town meeting.

The discussion at the town meeting began with one other individual pointing out that frequently the state or federal government or some other organization which may or may not be government-based in nature (and Americorp is government based) will provide seed money for a position. But the recipient of the seed money is then expected to continue to fund the position long after the seed money has been spent. And so a local budget grows and grows and therefore so do the taxes. Hence the amendment was offered and passed.

Therefore, unless the Eddington Board of Selectmen officially states that it will not include the additional firefighter position in the 2010-2011 budget other than for the seven months of matching funds, they have violated Article 11 as passed by the Eddington voters.

3. Given the inclination of the majority of Eddington residents to avoid attending even the once-a-year town meeting, it is quite likely that a simple Public Notice of a Special Town Meeting to Discuss .... would have been sufficient. The Board of Selectmen could have even scheduled it in accordance with a regularly scheduled Board Meeting, just as they schedule other Public Notices (and few if any people ever show other than the specific people being effected). It is quite likely that any people who did respond to the notification (by attending the meeting) would have approved the proposal submission even under the terms. But the people were never notified. And that is the issue.

The Chair's comments last night seemed a bit late in the process, if the Board ever had the intent to comply with the people's vote. But some form of notification would have shown the Board's respect for the vote of the people (under Article 11). As it turns out, it was business as usual, getting through the agenda as fast as possible (meeting was over in 30 minutes flat!) and no one would have ever known (or been advised) if yours truly hadn't been in attendance last night at the "Okey-Doke Corral."

This is your local elected government in action, Eddington, (with the American flag in the background).

MAINE CORRECTIONS - AS IT RELATES

Even though I had not intended the previous post to be on this blog (I'm having nothing BUT troubles with the other blog, BTW), Mainers might be interested to know the following - because it sounds a lot like the consequence of potential problems brewing right here in this state.

It seems, with all the promises our illustrious governor made re: how consolidating the State's Department of Corrections (DOC) with the numerous county jails - aka County Corrections) would save us taxpayers money in the form of our property taxes, it hasn't. Add to that, the DOC has cut back funding for training its own existing employees who are expected to work with incarcerated inmates. We have some employees who have Permanent Full-Time employee status (which means they cannot be fired because they failed to pass their initial Probationary Period, usually their first year of employment - or the first year of a new promotional grade) and have never - I repeat NEVER - received a supervisor's Evaluation review.

Of course, an Evaluation Review would require stating whether or not the employee is doing a satisfactory (or less than or better than Satisfactory performance) in various areas demonstrating he/she has grasped the concepts and procedures taught in the aforementioned Training.

But, cost-cutting within the DOC's budget, either via the Legislature or within the DOC's decision-making procedures, eliminated required training for certain employees who were hired nearly one year ago. Consequently, these employees are prohibited from working within certain confines of the prisons and are therefore unable to provide some of the very services or instruction to the inmates the employees were hired to do in the first place.

Of course the time is still ticking for the inmates. and they will be scheduled for and released into the various communities throughout the state according to the law with or without the services and instructions these employees were hired to provide. Some of these inmates are SEX OFFENDERS.

So the next time one of these paroled/on probation state inmates commits another crime following release from prison - the next time a local law enforcement agency has to deal with the consequences of one of these offenders back out on the streets, let's ask if the appropriate counselors ever had access to them while they were incarcerated. Let's ask if the correctional employees that have already been hired (not to mention any hired in the future) have actually received the training they should be getting in order to do the job we are paying them to do. Let's ask when was the last time ANY correctional employee received an evaluation review BEFORE receiving a pay increase (or demotion).

Seems to me the governor has dropped the ball again - along with DOC - and it's the citizens of Maine who are expected to just go along. Let's just hope none of those correctional employees get injured on the job because they didn't get the training they were supposed to get as part of their job. Let's just hope none of us, or our families or friends or neighbors are indirect victims of this cost-cutting action by a government that is only in power because of us - the voters.

CALIFORNIA PRISON SITUATIONS

If you aren't aware, there was a major riot, lasting four hours with over 80 correctional officers responding , at one of the largest men's prisons in California on August 8, 2009.

At approximately 8:20pm, inmates housed in the Reception Center of the California Institution for Men (CIM), located in Chino, CA began fighting is their assigned housing units. At that time, the Reception Center housed approximately 1300 medium security inmates. The "incident" ended up sending more than 200 inmates for medical treatment by CIM medical staff for minor, non-life threatening injuries. Fifty-five inmates, with more serious injuries, were transported to local outside hospitals for treatment. The incident was primarily between black and Hispanic inmates. (This information was provided via the CDCR Star corrections clips, an email news report yours truly receives daily.)

Now, lets talk about what some of this information means.

A RECEPTION CENTER is where new (and returning) inmates are first received and processed when entering prison. In California, an inmate is not entitled to visits or phone calls during the time he/she is assigned within the Reception Center. Processing includes an evaluation for the level of security assignment (determined by a number of factors which includes the nature of the crime for which he has been sentenced to prison as well as any previous criminal history, certified, prison gang affiliation, not to be confused with unconfirmed or street gang affiliation, education level, and a myriad of other factors).

There are several security levels to which an inmate can be assigned and each one carries limitations and privileges within the prison setting. Depending on the eventual security level assigned to an inmate, he/she may be transported to another prison or to a facility within the prison associated with the Reception Center. CIM has a large prison associated with this particular Reception Center. Not all prisons in California have Reception Centers.)

The length of time an inmate can be kept in the Reception Center without visits or the ability to make outside phone calls depends on the number of inmates being housed within the Reception Center and the number of Correctional Counselors available to conduct the classification process.

Correctional Counselors are not the same as Correctional Officers. BTW, Correctional Officers is the correct name - not guards. Correctional Counselors are a higher classification than Correctional Officers. That means their starting pay is higher than an officer's starting pay; they usually have college degrees in criminal justice or sociology or psychology or related areas and are case managers. Some officers eventually become Correctional Counselors.

In order for Correctional Counselors to complete the process of classification, numerous documents (regarding the specific inmate and his case) are required such as the sentencing judge's final documents and the inmate's crime summary, usually from the prosecuting attorney's office. These are not always included in the packets accompanying the inmate when he is transported from the sentencing county jail. Obtaining the required documents from the appropriate and authorizing jurisdictions can hold up the correctional classification process. Unfortunately, sending these documents doesn't always seem to be a priority for the sending jurisdiction.

While Correctional Officers are automatically placed on overtime to keep the institution safe and secure, it is difficult to obtain sufficient funding or to hire enough Correctional Counselors to handle the ever increasing number of Reception Center inmates, or to obtain enough funding to pay overtime for the Correctional Counselors on hand to move the inmates through the process. Think "bottleneck" - and then add racial and overcrowding tensions. What you can plan on is what happened August 8 at CIM's Reception Center.

In addition to the injuries, what damage was done? According to the daily posts I received, the following occurred:

"Hundreds of inmates using pipes and shanks as weapons trashed..the prison, burning a courtyard, ripping beds to shreds and tearing bathroom sinks from walls." "They literally tore the buildings apart," said a spokesperson for the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR). While the New York Times stated the institution had "a record of poor maintenance, shoddy safety protocols, dangerous overcrowding and riots, according to three inspection reports since 2006", it is interesting to note there is no mention of how many times the CDCR, formerly known as the California Department of Corrections (CDC) submitted major capital budget requests to the California Department of Finance (CDF) specifically regarding repairs and upgrades for the older prisons in California and were turned down.

It will be interesting to see how CDF responds now to the need for the estimated "$5Million to $6Million to make the repairs and clean up debris" to seven housing units and possibly more if the institution decided to rebuild one of the units destroyed by fire. According to the CDCR Star, more than 1,100 inmates have had to be transferred to other prisons and CIM correctional staff have been transferred to those institutions to assist in the additional security required to oversee those inmates. It's reasonable those re-assigned staff are on per-diem expenses and that's more money too.

What's that old adage, "Pay me now or pay me later." ?

CORRECTION RE: COMINS HALL SUPPER

In the previous blog, I wrote the Turkey supper was this coming Saturday Night (the 15th). My error. :-( The Correct Date is - the following Saturday Night - the 22nd.

Check the blog this coming weekend. I'll have news re: BOATS FOR SALE. Great prices and available for pick-up right here in Eddington.

*****

Last night was the first meeting for the Eddington-Clifton Book Club. Meeting dates will be the Second Tuesday of the month - from 6pm to 7pm at the Clifton Library (located inside the Clifton Town Office). The group is open to men and women. Bring whatever book you're currently reading - or - come to get a suggestion for a good book to read. I felt compelled this past Tuesday to pick up the new Catherine Coulter book "Knock Out" (her latest in her FBI series) and the latest Janet Evanovich book in the Stephanie Plum series. Of course, with all my scheduled and unscheduled activities, plus this writers group I've joined (and what a great addition that has been on lots of levels), I hardly know when I'll have time to read TWO new books. I just finished "Silks" by Dick Francis which was written in collaboration with his son, Felix. The ending definitely showed some influence from Felix.

******

Got a look at the Gift Shop at Clewley Farm Restaurant the other day. What a beautiful addition that is going to be to the town, as well as shoppers dropping in for a meal at the restaurant. The floor along is a piece of art worthy of more than a moment's appreciation. If you haven't made it a point to eat at a table in the "Back Porch" or go out for a brief stroll in the back before an early dinner (or lunch), do so. It will calm your worries better than any prescription.

*****

Looking out the window I can see two loons "fishing" a bit beyond the dock. Reminds me of the boat ride my youngest brother took me for a week ago. We were able to sit almost in the middle of five loons (boat engine off) for more than five minutes - watching two of them literally "shake a leg". At first we thought they were shaking their tails until I could clearly make out a webbed foot being shaken. Don't suppose it's a loon's version of "giving the finger" do you? :-) Should be close to time to seeing the babies out for a late night ride on the mothers' backs. Maybe that explains the adult bald eagle I saw flying overhead last week. I love the eagles but I don't want them feeding on any of our babies. That's for sure. It's bad enough the loons have to worry about losing their babies to the snapping turtle (and I have seen Myrtle-the-turtle-with-53-girdles this summer). What's a parent to do?

COMING WEEKENDS - STUFF TO SCHEDULE

This coming Saturday night - the 15th - will be 50's & 60's Night at Clewley Farm Restaurant. Buffet Dinner with food from those good 'ol days (Mac&Cheese, hamburgers, more) and Dola and Company will be back at the microphone. Anyone still have a poodle skirt and saddle shoes? And can you still fit into it which is more to the point isn't it? :-)

And there will be a Turkey Dinner at Comins Hall on the 15th as well. Guess there'll be no reason for anyone to go to bed hungry that night. :-D
****

Saturday the 22nd, Market Street Plaza in downtown Bangor will be closed off to vehicle traffic (similar to the way it was for the Sidewalk Art Show) for Blues & Brews - a first time event. Several blues bands will be performing and various micro-breweries will be setting up in the area. Bangor police and the City Council have signed off for the event which will allow people to buy the brews and walk the area listening to the performing Blues Bands at the same time. The event is being sponsored by BangorMetro magazine. More info to come in future blogs.

*****

The Eddington Farmer's Market may be ending before the scheduled date of September 27. It seems the lead vendor who's been absent two Sundays to date will also be absent on Labor date (as will a second vendor) in order to fulfill a previous commitment to appear at the Blue Hill Fair. I expect the matter will be on the August 25 Eddington Selectmen's agenda. Buyers are looking for fresh vegetables every Sunday at the Market. Too bad none of our local farmers have chosen to participate. Even with the excess rain this year there has to be some local produce.

FALLING LEAVES

This past weekend smelled like - felt like - Fall. The weather was lovely to be sure. Certainly nice to have sun instead of rain and my neighbors were out to enjoy the water. But, with so few really "Summer Days" this summer, finding TWO totally red leaves already fallen down on my lawn, I was not pleased! It is too soon.

I am not ready for Fall. Even though I normally enjoy a crisp, bright Fall day, after the past two winters, all I can think of regarding Fall is that Winter comes next. and I am NOT READY for another winter. I may not be ready for another one like the last two for at least five or six more years! (At least not until we've had a few nice summers.)

And I can't help but feel badly for the potato and dairy farmers this year - and the vegetable and fruit farmers, too. All the rain this miserable summer has made this coming Winter something that will be a burden to many more than the many who typically have to worry about heating their homes and feeding their families. (And then they can add the new financial burden of the Maine Income Tax law changes. See my earlier blog on that abomination.)

So I will enjoy whatever beautiful days may be ahead but I don't want to see any falling leaves for two or three months. Maybe longer. And then (with apologies to my snow mobile-loving friends and neighbors), I hope and pray for a mild Winter.

SAD63 NEWS - TIME TO GET READY FOR A NEW YEAR

The students' school year will begin Wednesday, August 26. The first SAD63 School Board meeting will be Monday, August 24 at 6:30pm - probably at Holbrook Middle School. I'll have to get back to you to confirm that location. As usual, Don Varnum is the Board's Chairman. It will be good if the Chairman remembers that, with all Boards, the Chair does not have a vote. This is beneficial in more than one way when one considers that Holden has four elected positions on the Board while Eddington has only three and Clifton has only one.

Since Varnum decided that Karen Clark, rep from Eddington shouldn't serve as Vice Chair for the coming year and then back-set the stage for Therese Anderson, rep from Eddington, to take Karen's place, it will be interesting to see who (other than Karen) works to keep Varnum on track in terms of Maine education law and/or SAD63 Board policies (there are over 500 policies). Fortunately Kevin Mills, new rep from Holden, appears to have taken his elected responsibilities seriously. I wonder how many reps - other than Kevin and Karen - have read them.

The most recent sidestepping of policies which have concerned me relate to (1) the requirement of all District employee contracts to be reviewed and approved by the Board (not by any individual of the Board independently acting in the name of the Board but the entire Board as a voting group - and let us remember who can and cannot vote) and (2) the regular production and public distribution of District Financial Reports and Audits.

It appears the SAD63 Board never knew the previous Superintendent changed certain employees' contracts and inserted clauses authorizing bonuses in amounts up to $5,000 annually (paid from our taxpayer monies). If Karen Clark had not discovered these clauses during research relating to the current ongoing lawsuit initiated by the terminated, previous Superintendent, this matter would not have been discovered or brought to light. So, my questions are:

• How did this change (in the impacted contracts) go through without Board knowledge?
• Who authorized these contract changes?
• How were the payments approved? Apparently there is one member of the School Board who needs to co-sign checks with the District Business Manager - and the Business Manager was one of the recipients of these bonus checks. Were these bonus checks just automatically cut by the outside agency contracted to process payroll? If so, who signed the authorization for the outside agency to process the bonus checks? Someone on the School Board? Remember - this is taxpayer money not private sector money. If the Chairperson approved the contract changes without the entire Board's approval, it was outside the Chair's authority.
• Since none of the contracts initiated for the 2008-09 academic year were brought to the School Board for review and approval, they were, in fact, illegal for the entire year. Considering the costs for school administration was more than $373, 000 in 2008 and more than $400,000 for school administration that same year, it doesn't take much imagination to think what the audit for 2009 will show. But none of those contracts were reviewed or approved by the Board (even though every one was paid throughout the fiscal year). Fortunately, this error in contract procedure was caught (by Karen - not by the Chairman who is supposed to be "in charge") and the 2009-2010 contracts being put in place prior to the Board break for July were properly processed by the Board.

Considering how many years Varnum has been the Board's Chair, one has to wonder how many other rules and procedures have been overlooked? And where have the other Board members been in monitoring these procedures? Back to Board members actually reading those policies and procedures and fulfilling their duties and responsibilities to the taxpayers...

The second area of concern I mentioned above has to do with the regular and timely production of monthly Financial Reports and the 2008-2009 District Audit.

Last year there were months that went by when the Board's Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) didn't receive a monthly Financial Report - copies of which should be automatically be distributed to the town managers of Eddington, Clifton and Holden, as well as any resident/taxpayer in those communities particularly attendants at the BFC meetings. It is the responsibility (fiscal and professional) of the District's Business Manager to close the District's financial books at the end of each month. [NOTE: This is standard professional business practice.] Therefore, there is no reason why the BFC doesn't have the Financial Report in time for its monthly meeting every month and the entire School Board by its month end meeting. Accordingly, since the funding for the District is being paid by the three towns, the town managers should have those reports for distribution for their respective Selectmen meetings.

As for that audit - there is no excuse for an annual audit not be completed and distributed by January 15 instead of July when the District's fiscal year closes June 30. If the District's Business Manager is closing the District's financial books at the end of each month, as is the standard for any professional (not to mention one being paid over $70,000 for a District as small as SAD63), the District's work papers and year end reports should be completed by no later than August 31 of the year which would allow any contracted auditing firm to begin the audit by September 1. Such an audit should take no longer than 4 months. That way we taxpayers (and all three towns' Board of Selectmen) could review the previous year's audit before we were having to review any proposed budget in May for an upcoming year without seeing how the previous year's had been handled - instead of being as much as two years or more out of date with real data.

There will be more on this subject in upcoming blogs because - until the District's fiscal/business processing is better handled, there is no reason to believe anyone should consider consolidating with SAD63 or that the taxpayers in our three towns should believe anything we're being told by this District's current administration.

MAINE'S NEW STATE INCOME TAX LAW - ROAD TO DESTRUCTION

The headlines from the State Legislature and Governor in Augusta focused on two primary issues: the rate is (in general) reduced from 8.5 percent to 6.5 percent of one's annual income and that the state sales tax is being spread to include more items and services than previously covered. The biggest uproar that resulted has been that car repairs are now going to be subject to a sales tax. Considering the abysmal state of the roads in this state, we all know how often and extensive our car repairs are annually, so we can see where this is going to hit our pocketbooks.

What our elected representatives didn't talk about very loudly was how this new state income tax law was going to impact people who owned or were buying properties.

If you are someone who itemizes tax deductions when preparing your state and federal tax forms, you know the two largest deductions are your mortgage interest and your property taxes. If you purchase property with a 30-year mortgage, your monthly mortgage payments for the first 10-15 years mostly goes to pay the mortgage interest. And we all know how our property taxes have been increasing to pay for school budgets and local government expenses. (And this will continue as the Maine state government continues to reduce its share of state education costs.) BUT, under the new Maine income tax law, neither your mortgage interest nor your property taxes will be deductible. Nor will any charitable donations.

According to a recent article in a local newspaper, those individuals making less than $60,000 annually will be paying MORE state taxes under this new Maine income tax law. Individuals making more than $250,000 annually will be paying FEWER taxes. And this law was passed by a legislature dominated by the Maine Democratic Party and signed by a governor from the same political party who is now claiming he has achieved his political promise to lower taxes in this state. Is he kidding?! Let us remember that the average annual income for Mainers is less than $45,000.

Under this new law, can you imagine anyone (who is aware of this tax structure) buying property in Maine either for the purpose of intending to be a Maine resident or bringing any operating business into Maine? If you are someone trying to sell any property in Maine, good luck finding a buyer unless that buyer doesn't have to finance any portion of the deal. And how many people do you think qualify for that?

Governor Baldacci was previously worried about the fact the state's population wasn't growing before this new tax law was passed. Guess how many people this will drive out of state or prevent from moving here in the first place! Which only decreases the tax base thereby increasing the state's tax problems and making matters even worse.

No wonder the Maine Democratic Party doesn't want to talk about these aspects of the new law. There is a rumor of petitions being circulated for signatures to put the issue on the ballot in November 2010 to repeal this law. Anyone seen one of them? If we can find one, we should be lining up to sign!

Of course November 2010 will be when we elect a new governor - and Baldacci will still leave office claiming he fulfilled his promise to lower state taxes. Instead he should be standing up to acknowledge how he (and his political party) have helped drive this state into perpetual poverty,