What with the weather, one can only wonder what the attendance will be tomorrow night at the Annual Town Meeting. Eddington Elementary School - 7pm (I think) probably should check.
Today was election day. I doubt there was much of a turnout what with the lousy weather and no opposition to any of the candidates. Maybe it would produce more of a voting record if the voting took place at the Town Meeting. That way candidates could stand up and be recognized (I know I don't know the second candidate for Selectmen - other than Charles Baker - so I wouldn't be inclined to vote for someone I wouldn't recognize). That way candidates could also state their position or platform, if they have one - what they think or would advocate - or at least answer the voters' questions. It might be the one and only time the voters would have a chance to speak their piece about what THEY/WE would like to see in our representatives.
If Clifton can do it, no reason why Eddington can't. Is there?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
IRONY AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
Pretty much the usual crowd which was disappointing. Board members in attendance were: Ellis, Hart, Anderson, Teisl, Clark, Mills and Varnum. The newly elected representative from Clifton (elected this past Saturday) was absent because she works nights. She will be able to get the night off to attend Board meetings but didn't have enough time to make arrangements for last night's meeting. Hope she'll be able to make arrangements for her committee meetings as well.
After grammatical and spelling errors were noted and corrected (as brought to the Board's attention by Clark), the minutes from the February Board meeting were approved.
There were no questions or comments from the general public at the initial opportunity in the meeting's agenda.
The principals from Eddington and Holden's Elementary schools announced the times and dates for the performances and rehearsals of the annual play with recommendations that people arrive early if they want a seat.
The principal from Holbrook Middle School requested the Board's approval for the 8th graders annual trip, which will be to Fun Town in Sacco. The Board approved. The principal also reported that 25 of the 32 students who were falling behind academically did show up last Saturday for the academic assistance programs that were made available from 9am to noon.
There were no comments from either the Business Manager or the Budget & Finance Committee regarding the monthly Finance Report. Nor did the Superintendent make any comments regarding his report.
Teisl did provide a brief summary of ideas that have been discussed at the joint- committee meetings held to date regarding the projected budget (and increase over last year). It was explained that while the Superintendent (and therefore the school newsletters at the first of the month) had initially projected an $800,000 increase, the subsequent (lower) figures are the result of the Central Office reworking the 2010-2011 budget weekly for the joint-committee meetings.
Therefore, by the March 3 meeting, the projected budget was down to $700,000 (in the hole). By the March 10th meeting, the projected budget had been re-worked to $500,000 (in the hole). Then, by the March 18th meeting, SAD 63's projected hole for 2010-2011 was only $475,000 deep.
Of course, the "kicker" was the proposal to "combine the principal/superintendent positions which would save" approximately $90,000. No comment was made that this was achieved by using a full-time superintendent's salary for an interim-superintendent and by using the "short-cut" method of by-passing any search and recruitment method for Hart's hand-picked successor and moving the Central Office to the Holden School.
Teisl also provided a "list" of the various ideas that had been brought forth during the course of the joint-committee meetings, stating that NOTHING had been determined, some that had been eliminated for various reasons, and some that were still on the table. He did state that "at this time" the closure of the Eddington Elementary School was Off The Table since there was not enough time to do all the work that would be required to bring about such a change, even though it might reduce budget costs by $500,000.
Some of the ideas brought forth:
Reconfigure the two elementary schools (K-2nd grade @ Eddington School & 3rd & 4th grades @ Holden School).
Consolidate and move the 4th grade to Holbrook which could save up to $80,000.
Changing to a 4-day school week.
Shift the share of health benefits.
The idea of a base tuition contract (discussed in earlier postings) has been determined to be illegal (via a legal opinion received by the Board).
Making some changes in the transportation system.
Making some changes/reductions in the Special Education programs (impacting gym, language, art, etc. programs).
(Note: there was no reference to reducing the compensation package for the Business Manager position which was raised at the March 10 meeting which would save over $25,000 which was raised at the March 10 meeting. NOTE: See posting for that meeting).
The Chair stated a response has been received from State Senator Richard Rosen indicating he will try to attend one of the remaining budget meetings. No response has been received from House Representative (and Eddington resident) Ben Pratt. NOTE: See yesterday's posting and Mr. Pratt's appearance at the Clifton Town Meeting.
The NEXT MEETING of the joint-committee will be April 1 @ 5pm @ Holbrook Middle School. The April 7 meeting will be at the same location but is scheduled for the usual time of 5:30pm.
The Chair's report was very interesting re: the status of an RSU. It seems there is a provision in the consolidation law that allows a school district that finds itself in a situation where it cannot find any partners that want to consolidate with it to file for an exemption to the Tax Penalty. This is called a "DONUT HOLE exemption". SAD 63 (and CSD 8 and Otis (maybe) would appear to qualify as Donut Hole school districts IF the Commissioner approves the Dedham/Orrington Letters of Intent to form a separate RSU.
The Board approved a motion for the Chair to file for such an exemption (as a Donut Hole district) if the Commissioner approves either Dedham's or Orrington's Letter of Intent.
Following that motion, the citizen rep from Holden on both the joint committee and the RPC for that town submitted a request that the Board send a letter to the Commissioner asking her to consider the consequences of her actions should she approve the Dedham Letter. (It should be noted that someone had stated they had been at a meeting in Dedham where it had been expressed that Dedham - or someone from that town - expected a favorable response from the Commissioner within a week.) There was quite a bit of discussion to the request. No one wanted to have a letter from SAD 63 to be construed as interfering with the wishes of Dedham or to be seen as telling the Commissioner what to do. In the end it was decided that Hart will draft a letter for the Chair that will simply (and nicely/tactfully) point out that SAD 63 and others had complied with all of the rules and procedures and now found themselves in a "what do we we now" situation with tax penalties pending through no fault of their own. Since SAD 63 (and others) had done their best to comply with the law, and are concerned with the future of the school district in terms of cost and quality of education, it is hoped the Commissioner will give some consideration of these issues in her decision (whether or not to approve the Dedham/Orrington letters).
The passage of that motion seemed to appease the parties concerned.
Other news: SAD 63 policies will begin to be posted on the district website for viewing by anyone interested in seeing them. Only authorized people will be able to "write" on or change the policies.
The Board adjourned at 7:30pm to Executive Session to "discuss" the issue of the principal/interim-superintendent appointment. And this is where the IRONY comes in. Anyone who has attended the joint-committee meetings knows what this discussion is about. So what could be the "big secret"? Perhaps there was some discussion why, with over a year's forewarning, no Personnel Committee was ever appointed in the first place to do the job that should have been their decision and not Hart's. Of course - then there would have been the issue of the Business Manager position which this writer has raised before and the savings (and improved job performance) such a new applicant search could have generated.
After grammatical and spelling errors were noted and corrected (as brought to the Board's attention by Clark), the minutes from the February Board meeting were approved.
There were no questions or comments from the general public at the initial opportunity in the meeting's agenda.
The principals from Eddington and Holden's Elementary schools announced the times and dates for the performances and rehearsals of the annual play with recommendations that people arrive early if they want a seat.
The principal from Holbrook Middle School requested the Board's approval for the 8th graders annual trip, which will be to Fun Town in Sacco. The Board approved. The principal also reported that 25 of the 32 students who were falling behind academically did show up last Saturday for the academic assistance programs that were made available from 9am to noon.
There were no comments from either the Business Manager or the Budget & Finance Committee regarding the monthly Finance Report. Nor did the Superintendent make any comments regarding his report.
Teisl did provide a brief summary of ideas that have been discussed at the joint- committee meetings held to date regarding the projected budget (and increase over last year). It was explained that while the Superintendent (and therefore the school newsletters at the first of the month) had initially projected an $800,000 increase, the subsequent (lower) figures are the result of the Central Office reworking the 2010-2011 budget weekly for the joint-committee meetings.
Therefore, by the March 3 meeting, the projected budget was down to $700,000 (in the hole). By the March 10th meeting, the projected budget had been re-worked to $500,000 (in the hole). Then, by the March 18th meeting, SAD 63's projected hole for 2010-2011 was only $475,000 deep.
Of course, the "kicker" was the proposal to "combine the principal/superintendent positions which would save" approximately $90,000. No comment was made that this was achieved by using a full-time superintendent's salary for an interim-superintendent and by using the "short-cut" method of by-passing any search and recruitment method for Hart's hand-picked successor and moving the Central Office to the Holden School.
Teisl also provided a "list" of the various ideas that had been brought forth during the course of the joint-committee meetings, stating that NOTHING had been determined, some that had been eliminated for various reasons, and some that were still on the table. He did state that "at this time" the closure of the Eddington Elementary School was Off The Table since there was not enough time to do all the work that would be required to bring about such a change, even though it might reduce budget costs by $500,000.
Some of the ideas brought forth:
Reconfigure the two elementary schools (K-2nd grade @ Eddington School & 3rd & 4th grades @ Holden School).
Consolidate and move the 4th grade to Holbrook which could save up to $80,000.
Changing to a 4-day school week.
Shift the share of health benefits.
The idea of a base tuition contract (discussed in earlier postings) has been determined to be illegal (via a legal opinion received by the Board).
Making some changes in the transportation system.
Making some changes/reductions in the Special Education programs (impacting gym, language, art, etc. programs).
(Note: there was no reference to reducing the compensation package for the Business Manager position which was raised at the March 10 meeting which would save over $25,000 which was raised at the March 10 meeting. NOTE: See posting for that meeting).
The Chair stated a response has been received from State Senator Richard Rosen indicating he will try to attend one of the remaining budget meetings. No response has been received from House Representative (and Eddington resident) Ben Pratt. NOTE: See yesterday's posting and Mr. Pratt's appearance at the Clifton Town Meeting.
The NEXT MEETING of the joint-committee will be April 1 @ 5pm @ Holbrook Middle School. The April 7 meeting will be at the same location but is scheduled for the usual time of 5:30pm.
The Chair's report was very interesting re: the status of an RSU. It seems there is a provision in the consolidation law that allows a school district that finds itself in a situation where it cannot find any partners that want to consolidate with it to file for an exemption to the Tax Penalty. This is called a "DONUT HOLE exemption". SAD 63 (and CSD 8 and Otis (maybe) would appear to qualify as Donut Hole school districts IF the Commissioner approves the Dedham/Orrington Letters of Intent to form a separate RSU.
The Board approved a motion for the Chair to file for such an exemption (as a Donut Hole district) if the Commissioner approves either Dedham's or Orrington's Letter of Intent.
Following that motion, the citizen rep from Holden on both the joint committee and the RPC for that town submitted a request that the Board send a letter to the Commissioner asking her to consider the consequences of her actions should she approve the Dedham Letter. (It should be noted that someone had stated they had been at a meeting in Dedham where it had been expressed that Dedham - or someone from that town - expected a favorable response from the Commissioner within a week.) There was quite a bit of discussion to the request. No one wanted to have a letter from SAD 63 to be construed as interfering with the wishes of Dedham or to be seen as telling the Commissioner what to do. In the end it was decided that Hart will draft a letter for the Chair that will simply (and nicely/tactfully) point out that SAD 63 and others had complied with all of the rules and procedures and now found themselves in a "what do we we now" situation with tax penalties pending through no fault of their own. Since SAD 63 (and others) had done their best to comply with the law, and are concerned with the future of the school district in terms of cost and quality of education, it is hoped the Commissioner will give some consideration of these issues in her decision (whether or not to approve the Dedham/Orrington letters).
The passage of that motion seemed to appease the parties concerned.
Other news: SAD 63 policies will begin to be posted on the district website for viewing by anyone interested in seeing them. Only authorized people will be able to "write" on or change the policies.
The Board adjourned at 7:30pm to Executive Session to "discuss" the issue of the principal/interim-superintendent appointment. And this is where the IRONY comes in. Anyone who has attended the joint-committee meetings knows what this discussion is about. So what could be the "big secret"? Perhaps there was some discussion why, with over a year's forewarning, no Personnel Committee was ever appointed in the first place to do the job that should have been their decision and not Hart's. Of course - then there would have been the issue of the Business Manager position which this writer has raised before and the savings (and improved job performance) such a new applicant search could have generated.
Monday, March 22, 2010
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING TONIGHT & CLIFTON TOWN MEETING "ROASTING"
Tonight - Monday the 22nd - is the monthly SAD 63 School Board meeting. Hope to see a LARGE crowd at the Holden School at 6:30pm. Should be interesting to see what "items" the joint budget committee brings before the Board for approval (such as the appointment of the Interim Superintendent). If you don't know what this is all about, see previous postings starting from March 3 forward.
The Clifton Town Meeting took place this past Saturday at which their new School Board representative was elected. She should take her seat tonight. Hopefully she will have been "briefed" by some of her townspeople on the issues THEY want her to speak up about on their behalf. Somebody better start speaking up (besides Hart, that is).
Ben Pratt, area representative to the State Legislature's House of Representatives, was in attendance at the Clifton Town Meeting. Seems he was asked quite a few questions re: the Legislature's (budgetary) actions which we are all hearing will significantly impact the SAD 63 school budget (and therefore property taxes in Clifton, Eddington and Holden). Seems Mr. Pratt didn't know what the Legislature was doing. ?! - or the impact being felt right here at home in the schools or property owners. (Isn't that his job? The one we taxpayers are paying him to do what with the salary and benefits he's currently receiving, and the retirement benefits he'll receive once he's out of office?)
Perhaps the individuals responsible for cleaning up the hall after the Town Meeting might want to see if they can find any of Mr. Pratt's skin on the floor since this writer heard Pratt was rightly "skinned" for not knowing what was going on at the place of business where his constituents sent him to represent and advocate for them. Hopefully, Mr. Pratt will be better informed before he attends the Eddington Town Meeting next Tuesday - March the 30th.
NOTE: One of the questions asked at the Clifton Town Meeting was how the state dared to levy tax penalties on taxpayers for not being able to consolidate (especially under current circumstances here) when the Legislature has never complied with the law voters State-wide passed requiring State government to fund 55% of public education. Perhaps it would be wise if Mr. Pratt spent more time finding out what his constituents expect of him and less time marching to the tune of the House Majority Caucus.... or maybe he'll find himself spending all of his time amongst his (former) constituents.
The Clifton Town Meeting took place this past Saturday at which their new School Board representative was elected. She should take her seat tonight. Hopefully she will have been "briefed" by some of her townspeople on the issues THEY want her to speak up about on their behalf. Somebody better start speaking up (besides Hart, that is).
Ben Pratt, area representative to the State Legislature's House of Representatives, was in attendance at the Clifton Town Meeting. Seems he was asked quite a few questions re: the Legislature's (budgetary) actions which we are all hearing will significantly impact the SAD 63 school budget (and therefore property taxes in Clifton, Eddington and Holden). Seems Mr. Pratt didn't know what the Legislature was doing. ?! - or the impact being felt right here at home in the schools or property owners. (Isn't that his job? The one we taxpayers are paying him to do what with the salary and benefits he's currently receiving, and the retirement benefits he'll receive once he's out of office?)
Perhaps the individuals responsible for cleaning up the hall after the Town Meeting might want to see if they can find any of Mr. Pratt's skin on the floor since this writer heard Pratt was rightly "skinned" for not knowing what was going on at the place of business where his constituents sent him to represent and advocate for them. Hopefully, Mr. Pratt will be better informed before he attends the Eddington Town Meeting next Tuesday - March the 30th.
NOTE: One of the questions asked at the Clifton Town Meeting was how the state dared to levy tax penalties on taxpayers for not being able to consolidate (especially under current circumstances here) when the Legislature has never complied with the law voters State-wide passed requiring State government to fund 55% of public education. Perhaps it would be wise if Mr. Pratt spent more time finding out what his constituents expect of him and less time marching to the tune of the House Majority Caucus.... or maybe he'll find himself spending all of his time amongst his (former) constituents.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
GOOD NEWS - AND THINGS TO PONDER
The "Good News" is:
The ice on the pond (western end at least down toward the cove and Rooks Landing) was totally gone by 4PM on Saturday. It looked to be clear water all the way across to the Holden side. No idea how far down toward the eastern end (by the dam locks) it may be clear, but it looks to be pretty much so as far as the eye can see. There may be some "slushy ice" over toward the far southeastern coves, but, if so, it should be gone tomorrow considering the temperatures.
The loons were singing this morning around 7:30 while there was still plenty of shale ice up here in the western cove. One thing I noticed this year though has been the absence of the red fox. First time in three years I haven't seen her. Perhaps the construction next door spooked her off. Sad, though.
Clifton held its Town Meeting today. Seems to me this is also the day those folks will be electing their new School Board member. Sure hopes she knows something about budgets, finance, business management or something related to those fields. That way the School Board Chair can appoint her to the Budget and Finance Committee and replace one of the THREE members (as in all three) from Holden. When Therese Anderson was elected Chair of the School Board, she could no longer serve as a member on any committee. (FYI, The Chair serve as Ex Officio on all committees but does not have a vote. Since There were only two Board members to choose from - Don Varnum and Chris Fickett, and Fickett hasn't shown up for any meetings for over two months, Varnum was the only choice. That meant all three were from Holden - Sylvia Ellis, Mario Teisl - the Chair, and the Varnum.)
Now, those things to Ponder - and of course they relate to the situation with the School Board and the upcoming Budget and what will (and won't) be proposed at this coming Monday's School Board meeting - 6:30pm.
With no disrespect to Dave Anderson, principal at the Holden School and the heir apparent for the Interim Superintendent's position (hand-picked by the out-going Ray Hart)...
The SAD 63 School Board has known for a long time that Hart's contract was expiring June 30, 2010. Heck, the man can hardly open any meeting without announcing how many (few) days he has left before he can finally be retired again and resume playing golf down around his home in Stockton Springs. Additionally, the School Board knew last year that the Business Manager's contract was expiring June 30, 2010, as well, because she wanted to hold onto that three-year contract instead of the offered multi-year "new contract" because any new contract wouldn't have that infamous Bonus Clause that Hart says he eliminated.....
So, with all of the 12 months of notice, why didn't the School Board activate a Personnel Committee months ago for the purpose of advertising and recruiting applications for an Interim Superintendent AND a Business Manager in what would have been an open and forth-right manner? This writer knows there have been Board members stating the Business manager's position would elicit qualified applicants for a compensation package at the $50,000. range. And the current individual could have applied and competed if she were willing to accept the position at that level of compensation.
The district had plenty of indications for months it would not be consolidating with ANY partners by July 1, what with the do-nothing position of the former Chairman and then the not-too-surprising actions of Dedham and Orrington, followed by the traditional non-responsive position of the Commissioner. So why did the Board decide to do nothing about recruiting for an Interim Superintendent and Business Manager on their own? Are the members of the School Board incapable of making decisions without the directions (dictates) of Hart?
Hart appears to be hand-picking Dave Anderson as his successor. True, Anderson has (apparently) agreed to do the job for only $15,000 for the year. What a bargain when Hart states he received $45,000 (and thinks he was worth more). Hart's contract was for $200./day - $600./week for three days a week plus various expenses. However, Anderson has stated he has certain "requirements." He believes the principal should maintain a presence in his school (and for which he will be paid $75,000./year). Seems reasonable and responsible - from the principal point of view. So - to that end, the School Board is going to be asked to approve moving the Central Office (the office of the Superintendent) from Holbrook Middle School to Holden School.
Regardless of whether the moving of Central Office costs nothing (because the district will utilize district staff to move the equipment and furniture, etc.) or the various amounts that have been cited in and out of various meetings (from $49,000 to $79,000 which was mentioned at the Eddington Selectmen's meeting March 16th), the question of "WHY" should still be asked. The superintendent is still responsible for visiting and checking in on ALL three schools in the district as past of the duties of the position. So why not keep the Central Office at Holbrook which is where the Superintendent will need to check in anyway? If the Superintendent's secretary is still located at Holbrook (and that position is to be retained), why can't she communicate as needed with Anderson via phone or email or skype at his Holden office during those times when he is at Holden. This is an Interim position, isn't it? And he is still going to be required to attend meetings away from the Holden School. The position of Interim Superintendent will have duties and responsibilities that the Board and the district has a right to expect to be fulfilled - regardless of the compensation paid.
Perhaps the reason the School Board (under the influence of Hart) didn't activate a Personnel Committee - search committee - was to do so would have begged the obvious issue of the Business Manager position. A position which is over-paid and has a part-time assistant as it is. It's not as though other district staff report the individual in question regularly reports to work at 8am and works until 5pm.... (Or maybe when one receives a compensation equal to two of the three principals and has better health benefits than the principals one isn't expected to put in a 40 hour work week.) The fact is, there are a lot of people well qualified to do the job who would be more than eager to apply for the position at $50,000, with a more reasonable benefits package. And the district could save $25,000.
So, if everything is supposedly "ON THE TABLE" for consideration in order to reduce the budget deficit, and when teacher positions and educational programs are on the chopping block - why is one position sacro-sanct? $25,000 is the equivalent to at least one teacher position maybe. A cost-saving certainly when we're being told there will be an $800,000 to $500,000 shortfall this year and EVERYONE is going to have to feel some of the pain - make sacrifices...
The Bottom Line Question here is: Does the School Board run the School Board or does Hart? The taxpayers and voters elected the School Board - not Hart. If the members of the Board can't be depended upon to do what's right, can the taxpayers really believe anything the Board tells them at the May 17 Public Hearing? Based on the "discussion" between Kevin Mills and Hart at the March 8 joint committee meeting (see the previous positing), this writer thinks the taxpayers and voters need to be prepared to carefully consider who to trust. Ethics seems to be in short commodity these days.
The ice on the pond (western end at least down toward the cove and Rooks Landing) was totally gone by 4PM on Saturday. It looked to be clear water all the way across to the Holden side. No idea how far down toward the eastern end (by the dam locks) it may be clear, but it looks to be pretty much so as far as the eye can see. There may be some "slushy ice" over toward the far southeastern coves, but, if so, it should be gone tomorrow considering the temperatures.
The loons were singing this morning around 7:30 while there was still plenty of shale ice up here in the western cove. One thing I noticed this year though has been the absence of the red fox. First time in three years I haven't seen her. Perhaps the construction next door spooked her off. Sad, though.
Clifton held its Town Meeting today. Seems to me this is also the day those folks will be electing their new School Board member. Sure hopes she knows something about budgets, finance, business management or something related to those fields. That way the School Board Chair can appoint her to the Budget and Finance Committee and replace one of the THREE members (as in all three) from Holden. When Therese Anderson was elected Chair of the School Board, she could no longer serve as a member on any committee. (FYI, The Chair serve as Ex Officio on all committees but does not have a vote. Since There were only two Board members to choose from - Don Varnum and Chris Fickett, and Fickett hasn't shown up for any meetings for over two months, Varnum was the only choice. That meant all three were from Holden - Sylvia Ellis, Mario Teisl - the Chair, and the Varnum.)
Now, those things to Ponder - and of course they relate to the situation with the School Board and the upcoming Budget and what will (and won't) be proposed at this coming Monday's School Board meeting - 6:30pm.
With no disrespect to Dave Anderson, principal at the Holden School and the heir apparent for the Interim Superintendent's position (hand-picked by the out-going Ray Hart)...
The SAD 63 School Board has known for a long time that Hart's contract was expiring June 30, 2010. Heck, the man can hardly open any meeting without announcing how many (few) days he has left before he can finally be retired again and resume playing golf down around his home in Stockton Springs. Additionally, the School Board knew last year that the Business Manager's contract was expiring June 30, 2010, as well, because she wanted to hold onto that three-year contract instead of the offered multi-year "new contract" because any new contract wouldn't have that infamous Bonus Clause that Hart says he eliminated.....
So, with all of the 12 months of notice, why didn't the School Board activate a Personnel Committee months ago for the purpose of advertising and recruiting applications for an Interim Superintendent AND a Business Manager in what would have been an open and forth-right manner? This writer knows there have been Board members stating the Business manager's position would elicit qualified applicants for a compensation package at the $50,000. range. And the current individual could have applied and competed if she were willing to accept the position at that level of compensation.
The district had plenty of indications for months it would not be consolidating with ANY partners by July 1, what with the do-nothing position of the former Chairman and then the not-too-surprising actions of Dedham and Orrington, followed by the traditional non-responsive position of the Commissioner. So why did the Board decide to do nothing about recruiting for an Interim Superintendent and Business Manager on their own? Are the members of the School Board incapable of making decisions without the directions (dictates) of Hart?
Hart appears to be hand-picking Dave Anderson as his successor. True, Anderson has (apparently) agreed to do the job for only $15,000 for the year. What a bargain when Hart states he received $45,000 (and thinks he was worth more). Hart's contract was for $200./day - $600./week for three days a week plus various expenses. However, Anderson has stated he has certain "requirements." He believes the principal should maintain a presence in his school (and for which he will be paid $75,000./year). Seems reasonable and responsible - from the principal point of view. So - to that end, the School Board is going to be asked to approve moving the Central Office (the office of the Superintendent) from Holbrook Middle School to Holden School.
Regardless of whether the moving of Central Office costs nothing (because the district will utilize district staff to move the equipment and furniture, etc.) or the various amounts that have been cited in and out of various meetings (from $49,000 to $79,000 which was mentioned at the Eddington Selectmen's meeting March 16th), the question of "WHY" should still be asked. The superintendent is still responsible for visiting and checking in on ALL three schools in the district as past of the duties of the position. So why not keep the Central Office at Holbrook which is where the Superintendent will need to check in anyway? If the Superintendent's secretary is still located at Holbrook (and that position is to be retained), why can't she communicate as needed with Anderson via phone or email or skype at his Holden office during those times when he is at Holden. This is an Interim position, isn't it? And he is still going to be required to attend meetings away from the Holden School. The position of Interim Superintendent will have duties and responsibilities that the Board and the district has a right to expect to be fulfilled - regardless of the compensation paid.
Perhaps the reason the School Board (under the influence of Hart) didn't activate a Personnel Committee - search committee - was to do so would have begged the obvious issue of the Business Manager position. A position which is over-paid and has a part-time assistant as it is. It's not as though other district staff report the individual in question regularly reports to work at 8am and works until 5pm.... (Or maybe when one receives a compensation equal to two of the three principals and has better health benefits than the principals one isn't expected to put in a 40 hour work week.) The fact is, there are a lot of people well qualified to do the job who would be more than eager to apply for the position at $50,000, with a more reasonable benefits package. And the district could save $25,000.
So, if everything is supposedly "ON THE TABLE" for consideration in order to reduce the budget deficit, and when teacher positions and educational programs are on the chopping block - why is one position sacro-sanct? $25,000 is the equivalent to at least one teacher position maybe. A cost-saving certainly when we're being told there will be an $800,000 to $500,000 shortfall this year and EVERYONE is going to have to feel some of the pain - make sacrifices...
The Bottom Line Question here is: Does the School Board run the School Board or does Hart? The taxpayers and voters elected the School Board - not Hart. If the members of the Board can't be depended upon to do what's right, can the taxpayers really believe anything the Board tells them at the May 17 Public Hearing? Based on the "discussion" between Kevin Mills and Hart at the March 8 joint committee meeting (see the previous positing), this writer thinks the taxpayers and voters need to be prepared to carefully consider who to trust. Ethics seems to be in short commodity these days.
Friday, March 19, 2010
THE LOONS ARE BACK!
Five or six loons were spotted this morning on Davis Pond! In one of many places of open water across the pond, closer to the Eddington side, first two, then three, and finally six loon were spotted, with the help of binoculars, swimming. And this is before the official first day of Spring!
Considering the condition of the ice remaining on the pond, it may sink any day now - even before this writer's previous projection of the last weekend of March. According to long-time shoreline residents, this will be the earliest the ice has gone out in perhaps thirty years. (No complaints from this writer.)
From midday yesterday to late afternoon the openings increased in both number and size, until even the Holden side of the pond was showing open water. Not exactly swimming weather yet, but as long as the mosquitoes and black flies stay gone, it's the best time to enjoy Spring.
With a nod to Rogers and Hammerstein, "Oh what a beautiful morning...."
Considering the condition of the ice remaining on the pond, it may sink any day now - even before this writer's previous projection of the last weekend of March. According to long-time shoreline residents, this will be the earliest the ice has gone out in perhaps thirty years. (No complaints from this writer.)
From midday yesterday to late afternoon the openings increased in both number and size, until even the Holden side of the pond was showing open water. Not exactly swimming weather yet, but as long as the mosquitoes and black flies stay gone, it's the best time to enjoy Spring.
With a nod to Rogers and Hammerstein, "Oh what a beautiful morning...."
Thursday, March 18, 2010
ICE OPENS AT DAVIS POND
Today was the day! Large open areas appeared in the ice close to the middle of the pond with other areas opening throughout the day. The wind sped up the process as the shoreline running water gained territory and the ice thinned significantly. For sure the pond will be open by month end - perhaps before the 24th. Come on, Loons!
SCHOOL BOARD BUDGET PLANNING MEETING TONIGHT AT HOLBROOK SCHOOL
Tonight is the third meeting for the joint committees (S/B Budget & Finance Committee and communities Finance Advisory Board) - at Holbrook Middle School - at 5:30pm. Second Floor near the Library.
If you haven't gone to any of these meetings before, Take the elevator or stairs to the Second Floor - Take a Left and go through the student library and through the doors on the Left. The doors will probably be open. (There may be Agendas on the counter on the left before entering the doors. The meeting's agenda has been lasting until 7:30pm, so come even if you can't there by 5:30pm.) People attending the meeting don't get to ask their questions - or make their comments - until the committees' agenda is completed, so be prepared to stay to put in your "two cents."
As mentioned at the Eddington Selectmen's meeting, if the Eddington School is closed (not this year but projected for "down the road - coming year or two"), Eddington property values can expect to be reduced (single family homes but not shoreline property) which will force property taxes to be increased to compensate for the loss in assessed value. The bills still have to be paid..... Just a thought to consider.
So when Eddington is told they would have to pay the cost of not closing the school (on top of the town's assessed portion of the school district's budget) - is this not a case of "Pay me now or pay me later"????? Especially in a town without any major businesses in the tax base - like Holden?
There were more than one or two voices at Eddington's Selectmen's meeting talking about separating from MSAD 63. And there have been similar sounds on the Clifton blog. Maybe someone needs to voice those thoughts at tonight's meeting.
If you haven't gone to any of these meetings before, Take the elevator or stairs to the Second Floor - Take a Left and go through the student library and through the doors on the Left. The doors will probably be open. (There may be Agendas on the counter on the left before entering the doors. The meeting's agenda has been lasting until 7:30pm, so come even if you can't there by 5:30pm.) People attending the meeting don't get to ask their questions - or make their comments - until the committees' agenda is completed, so be prepared to stay to put in your "two cents."
As mentioned at the Eddington Selectmen's meeting, if the Eddington School is closed (not this year but projected for "down the road - coming year or two"), Eddington property values can expect to be reduced (single family homes but not shoreline property) which will force property taxes to be increased to compensate for the loss in assessed value. The bills still have to be paid..... Just a thought to consider.
So when Eddington is told they would have to pay the cost of not closing the school (on top of the town's assessed portion of the school district's budget) - is this not a case of "Pay me now or pay me later"????? Especially in a town without any major businesses in the tax base - like Holden?
There were more than one or two voices at Eddington's Selectmen's meeting talking about separating from MSAD 63. And there have been similar sounds on the Clifton blog. Maybe someone needs to voice those thoughts at tonight's meeting.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
MARCH 16 EDDINGTON SELECTMEN'S MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING
The second of two Public Hearings took place last night at the Town Office to review the proposed 2010-2011 Town Budget. The suggestions/corrections discussed at the March 2 Public Hearing have been incorporated. At last night's meeting Susan Shane asked some budgeting questions regarding various figures - one in particular pertaining to cost savings in personnel health insurance. That correction will be made from the floor at the Town Meeting so people can vote on the corrected (and lower) figure for the budget.
It was also noted that if voters want to participate in deciding on the Moderator for the Town Meeting, they need to be at the Town Office by 7:58AM on March 29 since THAT decision (vote) will be done promptly at 8:00AM. It seems that we voters can participate in that selection - BUT we need to be there at the appointed time of others will make the decision for us.
The Town's Wind Mill Moratorium, as developed by the Town's Planning Committee, was submitted at the Public Hearing as well. According to the Town Manager, the Planning Committee has been working long hours on the ordinance since last July and is "close" to having the ordinance completed - but "close" isn't done so the Moratorium will, in essence, put a Hold on any permits being issued (up to 180 days) allowing time for the Planning Committee to finish its work. While the State has put out a Basic Ordinance, the Town's Planning Committee feels, after much Due Diligence, there are several areas where some fine tuning is needed.
Having completed the Public Hearing at 6:30p, the group went into a regular Selectmen Meeting with an agenda. There were 17 people in attendance in addition to the full Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager. Therefore, at the first "Public Access", this writer took the advantage of sharing some of the essential "questions & issues" evolving from the school board's joint meetings of the Budget & Finance Committee with the Financial Advisory Board over the past two weeks. The BOTTOM LINE was to encourage more people to attend the remaining meetings of the joint committee to see and hear what was going on and being discussed.
Karen Clark continued with a review of topics being "considered" to meet the coming budget crunch as part of her School Board Report.
Under the Board of Selectmen's New Business was the passage of a motion to Send Letters to State Senator Richard Rosen and House Representative Ben Pratt - the issue being the pending tax penalty of $180,000 (which will be withheld by the state - in addition to the other funding the state will fail to send as its share of the district's public education - thereby increasing the amount via property taxes we will be required to pay toward the school district's 2010-2011 budget).
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:15pm
It was also noted that if voters want to participate in deciding on the Moderator for the Town Meeting, they need to be at the Town Office by 7:58AM on March 29 since THAT decision (vote) will be done promptly at 8:00AM. It seems that we voters can participate in that selection - BUT we need to be there at the appointed time of others will make the decision for us.
The Town's Wind Mill Moratorium, as developed by the Town's Planning Committee, was submitted at the Public Hearing as well. According to the Town Manager, the Planning Committee has been working long hours on the ordinance since last July and is "close" to having the ordinance completed - but "close" isn't done so the Moratorium will, in essence, put a Hold on any permits being issued (up to 180 days) allowing time for the Planning Committee to finish its work. While the State has put out a Basic Ordinance, the Town's Planning Committee feels, after much Due Diligence, there are several areas where some fine tuning is needed.
Having completed the Public Hearing at 6:30p, the group went into a regular Selectmen Meeting with an agenda. There were 17 people in attendance in addition to the full Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager. Therefore, at the first "Public Access", this writer took the advantage of sharing some of the essential "questions & issues" evolving from the school board's joint meetings of the Budget & Finance Committee with the Financial Advisory Board over the past two weeks. The BOTTOM LINE was to encourage more people to attend the remaining meetings of the joint committee to see and hear what was going on and being discussed.
Karen Clark continued with a review of topics being "considered" to meet the coming budget crunch as part of her School Board Report.
Under the Board of Selectmen's New Business was the passage of a motion to Send Letters to State Senator Richard Rosen and House Representative Ben Pratt - the issue being the pending tax penalty of $180,000 (which will be withheld by the state - in addition to the other funding the state will fail to send as its share of the district's public education - thereby increasing the amount via property taxes we will be required to pay toward the school district's 2010-2011 budget).
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:15pm
Sunday, March 14, 2010
EDDINGTON REPUBLICAN TOWN COMMITTEE HAS NEW EMAIL ADDRESS
Anyone who is a resident of Eddington and a registered republican can become a member of the Eddington Republican Town Committee. Contact Troy Morton, Chair, at: Eddingtonrepublicantowncommittee@Yahoo.com for more information.
Information will be shared with members via email re: the May State Republican Convention, candidates for state and local offices, and issues of government interest. All ages are welcome. Anyone needing transportation to any local meeting can request assistance via the email address.
Information will be shared with members via email re: the May State Republican Convention, candidates for state and local offices, and issues of government interest. All ages are welcome. Anyone needing transportation to any local meeting can request assistance via the email address.
FROM THE BDN WEEKEND EDITION - RE: DEDHAM SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION REQUEST
The following news article was printed in the 3/13/10 online edition of the BDN. Thought readers might find it interesting. In the meantime, SAD 63 and CSD 8 and Otis are left twiddling their thumbs and the Legislature thinks SAD 63 towns should pay $180,000 in tax penalties. This is good government - justice - responsible representation from our elected State Senator and House Representative Pratt?
*****
Orrington-Dedham consolidation request unanswered
By Nok-Noi Ricker
BDN Staff
DEDHAM, Maine — School leaders in town and in Orrington asked Education Commissioner Susan Gendron in January about creating a regional school unit together, with a waiver for population, and are still waiting for an answer, Dedham Superintendent Daniel Lee said Thursday.
A proposed bill working its way through the Legislature that would allow districts, which have been unsuccessful in consolidating in the past, to join together without meeting the minimum student population, may be delaying her decision, said Lee, who also is Brewer’s superintendent.
“I think there are so many bills under consideration right now, she’s not doing anything until the dust settles,” he said.
LD 1203 “also eliminates penalties that would otherwise apply to such school administrative units,” the bill’s summary states. That bill, sponsored by Rep. Patricia Sutherland, D-Chapman, is one of many relating to school consolidation under review.
The Dedham School Board voted Jan. 19 and the Orrington School Committee voted on Jan. 5 to issue letters of intent to Gendron about joining together. Both were part of a proposed unit with Brewer, SAD 63 and CSD 8 last year that voters in all 10 communities resoundingly rejected during a January 2009 referendum.
SAD 63 includes the communities of Eddington, Holden and Clifton, and CSD 8 includes the communities of Amherst, Aurora, Great Pond and Osborn. Those two school districts and Otis are currently talking about consolidating and also are waiting to see what Gendron does, SAD 63 Superintendent Ray Hart has said.
The move makes sense for Orrington and Dedham because both school systems are similar and have a strong willingness to work together, Lee said. The partnership also would preserve the two schools, Center Drive School in Orrington and Dedham School, which are community gathering points for their towns, he said.
In the January letters, the two school systems asked the commissioner to provide them a waiver because there are only around 900 or so students in the two schools, which falls below the 1,200 state cutoff, Lee said.
Dedham now pays Brewer a little more than $100,000 annually for superintendent and special education services and access to a business manager. But “Orrington could easily handle Dedham’s service needs,” Lee has said, adding that no positions would be lost in either school department.
“This is certainly a bad time to say no to any consolidation that saves money,” he said.
The school boards from both towns plan to vote at their next meetings to create a regional planning committee, with school officials, town officials and residents of each community, sitting down together to create a consolidation plan, Lee said.
The votes will basically allow the two school districts “to begin talking,” he said.
While that process begins, Brewer will continue to provide services to Dedham, Lee said.
The delay isn’t bothering Lee, he said, because the towns would never meet the next state deadline to consolidate — June 30 — anyway.
“We could never get organized by the first of July,” he said. Lee still hopes LD 1203 will pass to prevent the two schools from getting fined by the state.
“If all goes well they’ll be working together” by fall or early 2011, he said.
*****
"The delay isn't bothering Lee..." Perhaps that's because he isn't facing our projected increase in property taxes. Besides, he's making money as long as Dedham is paying Brewer for Dedham's Central Services. Just a thought (or two...) In the meantime, Gendron continues to disregard the law and her duties because the Legislature is ignoring her. And the wheel turns and grinds down on the people (taxpayers/voters).
*****
Orrington-Dedham consolidation request unanswered
By Nok-Noi Ricker
BDN Staff
DEDHAM, Maine — School leaders in town and in Orrington asked Education Commissioner Susan Gendron in January about creating a regional school unit together, with a waiver for population, and are still waiting for an answer, Dedham Superintendent Daniel Lee said Thursday.
A proposed bill working its way through the Legislature that would allow districts, which have been unsuccessful in consolidating in the past, to join together without meeting the minimum student population, may be delaying her decision, said Lee, who also is Brewer’s superintendent.
“I think there are so many bills under consideration right now, she’s not doing anything until the dust settles,” he said.
LD 1203 “also eliminates penalties that would otherwise apply to such school administrative units,” the bill’s summary states. That bill, sponsored by Rep. Patricia Sutherland, D-Chapman, is one of many relating to school consolidation under review.
The Dedham School Board voted Jan. 19 and the Orrington School Committee voted on Jan. 5 to issue letters of intent to Gendron about joining together. Both were part of a proposed unit with Brewer, SAD 63 and CSD 8 last year that voters in all 10 communities resoundingly rejected during a January 2009 referendum.
SAD 63 includes the communities of Eddington, Holden and Clifton, and CSD 8 includes the communities of Amherst, Aurora, Great Pond and Osborn. Those two school districts and Otis are currently talking about consolidating and also are waiting to see what Gendron does, SAD 63 Superintendent Ray Hart has said.
The move makes sense for Orrington and Dedham because both school systems are similar and have a strong willingness to work together, Lee said. The partnership also would preserve the two schools, Center Drive School in Orrington and Dedham School, which are community gathering points for their towns, he said.
In the January letters, the two school systems asked the commissioner to provide them a waiver because there are only around 900 or so students in the two schools, which falls below the 1,200 state cutoff, Lee said.
Dedham now pays Brewer a little more than $100,000 annually for superintendent and special education services and access to a business manager. But “Orrington could easily handle Dedham’s service needs,” Lee has said, adding that no positions would be lost in either school department.
“This is certainly a bad time to say no to any consolidation that saves money,” he said.
The school boards from both towns plan to vote at their next meetings to create a regional planning committee, with school officials, town officials and residents of each community, sitting down together to create a consolidation plan, Lee said.
The votes will basically allow the two school districts “to begin talking,” he said.
While that process begins, Brewer will continue to provide services to Dedham, Lee said.
The delay isn’t bothering Lee, he said, because the towns would never meet the next state deadline to consolidate — June 30 — anyway.
“We could never get organized by the first of July,” he said. Lee still hopes LD 1203 will pass to prevent the two schools from getting fined by the state.
“If all goes well they’ll be working together” by fall or early 2011, he said.
*****
"The delay isn't bothering Lee..." Perhaps that's because he isn't facing our projected increase in property taxes. Besides, he's making money as long as Dedham is paying Brewer for Dedham's Central Services. Just a thought (or two...) In the meantime, Gendron continues to disregard the law and her duties because the Legislature is ignoring her. And the wheel turns and grinds down on the people (taxpayers/voters).
Friday, March 12, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD/BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING - SAD 63
The meeting, held at the Holbrook Middle School this past Wednesday, had many interesting moments. The level of productivity will have to be determined by the individuals in attendance and those reviewing the information passed on by them.
First, the "official parties" at the table: Ralph Russell, citizen rep from Eddington; Jackie Smallwood, citizen rep from Holden; Selectman Harvey from Holden; Mario Teisl, School Board member from Holden and Chairman of the S/B's Budget & Finance Committee (BFC); Ray Hart, Interim Superintendent; Don Varnum, School Member from Holden and apparently the new BFC member to replace Therese Anderson who was a committee member but, as the new S/B Chairman cannot sit as a committee member; Yvonne Mitchell, SAD 63 Business manager; Fred Rosenberg, citizen rep from Clifton; Penny Peasley, Selectwomen from Clifton; and Charles Baker, Selectman from Eddington. Sylvia Ellis, School Board member from Holden and the third BFC member was absent.
Meeting was called to order at 5:38pm and the Minutes of the March 3rd meeting were approved by the group as a whole. Teisl read aloud a letter he had drafted for the group's review to Senator Richard Rosen (a duplicate also had been prepared for Representative Ben Pratt) which, in general, explains the situation of SAD 63 and invites (each elected official) to attend a joint B&FC/Financial Advisory Committee Meeting. As the Legislature is currently is session, it is unknown if either or both will attend, but it is felt as elected representatives they should be aware of the serious financial situation the school district is facing - primarily caused by the Legislature and Commissioner Gendron (although that is not specifically pointed out in the letters). Selectwoman Peasley read the letter "of invitation" the Clifton Board of Selectmen has already send to the two gentlemen. NOTE: Area voters, taxpayers and district teachers are also encouraged to send similar letters. Addresses are provided at the conclusion of this posting.
Teisl pointed out the the joint committee (B&FC/FAC) is only looking at alternatives at this point. No decisions have been made as yet. The joint committee is doing Due Diligence this year - being TRANSPARENT in its considerations so that when members attend their various Town Meetings and questions are asked (re: School Budget) committee members will be able to answer whatever questions may come up.
Teisl also pointed out that he had done some research following the March 3 meeting because a S/B member in the audience had pointed out S/B policy states that any hiring (of an Interim Superintendent) falls under the responsibility/authority of the S/B's Personnel Committee and not the B&FC. Teisl stated the S/B member was correct; however there is no Personnel Committee. NOTE: That is because policy states a Personnel Committee is appointed only as needed. In fact, other than for the position of Superintendent, all personnel are (usually) recruited by the Superintendent and then recommended to the S/B by the Superintendent. But the S/B's Personnel Committee is responsible for advertising, interviewing, voting for and hiring the Superintendent BECAUSE the Superintendent is the EMPLOYEE of the S/B. Why the S/B did not appoint a Personnel Committee back in January when the new Chair was elected - so as to be pre-active - is a question we all should be asking since the matter of the Interim Superintendent's and Business Manager's contracts expiring June 30, 2010 has been known for over a year.
Teisl also said that he was going to utilize some latitude in his position of Chair. While some issues can only be acted on by S/B members (and therefore only the B&FC), he was include to consider the FAC an integral component of the decisions and evaluations of what needed to be looked at and evaluated. Therefore, he was inclined whenever permissible to consider the workings of the group as a "joint committee." He asked for a show of hands to indicate approval. It was unanimously approved by those in attendance.
Therefore, as Teisl noted, the Joint committee - or the B&FC, in reality - does not have the authority to make any decision regarding WHO should/would be placed in the Interim Superintendent position. The B&FC could only recommend to the FULL S/B regarding any candidate for the position. However, Teisl stated, "under special circumstances", the B&FC could waive traditional methods of advertising (for the position). NOTE: It should be pointed out that since Ellis did not attend this meeting, the legality of any B&FC action could be challenged because it requires ALL three members of the committee to be in attendance to conduct any committee business. So while Teisl did make the motion to recommend to the Full S/B that Dave Anderson be hired as the Interim Superintendent effective July 1 - and Don Varnum seconded the motion - and the two of them considered the motion carried, because Ellis was not there..... Anyway, the meeting went forth and Teisl acknowledged that without Ellis in attendance, anything the B&FC did was "advisory only."
It was pointed out that should Anderson be appointed by the S/B to the position, he would receive $75,000 in salary for his position as principal of Holden school, $15,000 as Interim Superintendent (unlike the $45,000 which Hart stated he has been receiving), and one other figure for something this writer didn't hear - maybe mileage to the numerous meetings and the required visitations to the other two schools (Holbrook and Eddington).
Hart stated "he had taken off the table" the elimination of the superintendent's secretary's position.
Hart was then asked to report on his "assignments" from the previous meeting. His first order of "information" was to state that he didn't know where the idea had come from that it would cost $49,000. to move the Central Services office from Holbrook School to Holden School. Hart said it wouldn't cost anything because district staff could move the Central Services Office themselves and it would cost anything. NOTE: Several people had written down his statements re: the cost from the March 3 meeting which is why it had been repeated and "discussed" in several circles.
Hart also reported the original concept of contracting (with Brewer) for a base tuition and that parents of students attending any other high school charging a higher tuition would have to pay the difference out of their own pocket did not appear to have the benefit of $200,000. it originally was thought to have. The actual benefit looked to be more along the lines of $83,000 or thereabouts. NOTE: This subject came up later when Kevin Mills, S/B member from Holden who was in the audience, brought up the matter. I'm bringing it up here out of chronological order to keep issue information together. First: Voters in each town would have to vote in a special Referendum as to the base tuition/parents pay the costs above that amount if their student attends a different high school. Then: Kevin pointed out that it was logical any contract with Brewer would result in Brewer requiring SAD 63 to turnover the "technology funds" that were eliminated from the SAD 63 budget last year ($86,000). Immediately, Hart wanted that issue discarded because it was separate from the tuition issue. "Apples and oranges." But it wasn't. And Teisl was caught in the middle. Comments from the audience showed that Kevin had a genuine issue. And the voters certainly would have a right to know ALL of the factors before voting. NOTE: Earlier in the evening's discussion, Hart had stated that if he had been permitted to say anything at the Public Hearing last May when voters were deciding to eliminated the $86,000 from the SAD 63 budget (because Brewer wasn't going forth with the program which would have required the funding to accompany SAD 63 students who were going on to Brewer High School), Hart would have opposed removing that money from the budget - because he would have used that money (our tax money) elsewhere. (!)
So - back to the issue - once it was acknowledged that there would be NO cost savings by contracting with Brewer High School, that issue was dropped like a rock.
Hart reported his contacts indicated no other district was interested in contracting with SAD 63 to provide SAD 63 Central Services. He did state he was waiting to hear back for a legal opinion regarding IF SAD 63 could contract for a base tuition (although with the issue of technology funds as noted above, that issue does not appear likely to go anywhere - at least with Brewer.)
Hart did point out that SAD 63, like the State of Maine, currently has UNFUNDED LIABILITIES, some of which are contractual obligations. It did take some time before he was willing to acknowledge that the "contractual obligation" are issues such as the district paying for advance degree courses taken by teachers already employed by the district and an item which can be negotiated in the contract currently "on the table." What wasn't discussed is that the two parties negotiating for the Board (aka Management) are Board Chairwoman Anderson - a university professor and teacher, and Hart. To be fair, Anderson does get the "There is no more money" picture. Hart, on the other hand, acknowledged Wednesday night, that he was the individual who, when he first became SAD 63 Superintendent, initiated the requirement that teachers take advanced courses and that the district pay for them. Somehow, the idea that he would advocate that cost be eliminated from the budget doesn't seem too promising. One unfunded liability is the district's Sick Bank. This writer believes other unfunded liabilities were listed by Hart but my notes do not include them. The current teachers' contract expires August 2010.
There was some feedback regarding any savings if the teachers took on 1% of the cost of their health insurance costs (single with children, family, etc.). After looking at the costs and how much that would ultimately cost the teachers in dollars annually compared to their income, it was thought to be too much of a hardship to ask of the teachers who already pick up a portion of those costs.
There was a suggestion that the contract negotiation could include options for teachers to choose from. That didn't seem to fly very high. The current expectation is that (according to the proposed budget) any new contracts will include NO pay increases. BUT, when the economic situation changes (maybe in four years according to Hart) pay raises will then compensate for time lost. In the meantime, there are some individuals who have contracts that will not expire in 2010 and those contracts do include an annual pay increase that must be honored.
Hart presented information regarding how costs had changed from original program mandates and cost-sharing, showing that while original costs had been shared more by the Federal and State government for special programs, those dollars had been reduced and the costs transferred to the local districts.
Selectwoman Peasley stated her community had a population of 759 people (of which approximately 150 are children attending SAD 63 schools). She further stated her town office currently has several pages of names of towns people who are delinquent in 2009-2010 property taxes. The implication was clear: If they can't pay what they owed for 2009-2010, there should be not expectation they will be able to pay even higher property taxes for 2010-2011. This blog posted similar information in recent days relating to the town of Eddington.
The citizen rep from Holden did provide some significant contributions. She had taken the proposed budget developed by the Business Manager and reviewed it line-by-line, comparing it to previous years and seeing what amounts could be cut. (Comparative year line item Monthly Financial Statements have been requested for at least two years from the Business Manager - requests that have gone ignored.) Through this careful review - finding a few thousand dollars here and several hundreds of dollars there, the citizen rep totaled $100,000. in possible cost savings that could be made in the 2010-2011 budget. It was the most beneficial aspect of the meeting and several members at the table acknowledged it as such. Others not so much. This writer will leave to the reader to figure out who that might have been. Maybe you had to be there.
There was some discussion about bringing payroll back into Central Office - for a contracted savings of $6,500. Many people believe the computer program already owned by the district is capable of producing the payroll once the Business Manager keys in the data - and it would be immediately capable of correcting any errors instead of making the employee wait two weeks for a corrected check. NOTE: Payroll used to be done in house and any errors were immediately corrected. And it didn't take $6,500 of taxpayer money and employee hardship to get the job done - just someone in the Business Office to do the job.
There was some extensive discussion about moving the 4th grade to Holbrook, even though there appear to be many parents who are not in agreement or happy about the idea. The citizen rep from Holden felt it will impact the young children in areas of learning, emotions and socially. She wanted to know if there were any psychological or educational studies to support children at the age of 4th graders in schools with 7th and 8th graders. it should be noted that some people spoke up to say that the young ones rode on the same school buses with the older students. Teisl said he would try to find some research information at the U of Maine/Orono.
The citizen rep from Clifton asked what if the S/B closed Holden School instead of Eddington School. THAT went up in smoke! Then the joint group sent its meeting schedule:
March 18 - Thursday
March 22 - School Board Meeting
March 24 had to be changed - moved to March 30 but that will be changed because it is the date for the Eddington Town Meeting. Will Post next week of new date.
April 7 - Wednesday. Final Budget has to be done
May 12 - Wednesday - Public Hearing of SAD 63 Proposed Budget - Holbrook School
May 17 - Monday - Special Meeting of the School Board - Final Approval of the Budget
May 19 - Wednesday - Development and Posting of Warrant Articles by the School Board
June 3 - Thursday - Annual Budget Meeting of the School Board
June 8 - Tuesday - Referendum Vote by Voters in all three towns on the School Budget
At 7:30pm the people in the audience finally got to ask questions and/or comment. At this point approximately half of the people had left, including Charles Bake who had left at 6:55pm.
There were six people who wanted to comment or has questions. Some of the comments had to do with moving the 4th grade to Holbrook. No one was in favor. NOTE: It should be pointed out that while all three principals have been in attendance for these two meetings - from beginning to end - none have been asked their opinion about anything except Dave Anderson regarding taking the Interim Superintendent position. Of course, how could they say anything in opposition to Hart who is the one who writes up their annual evaluation and controls their position. Even though Teisl says the principals will EVENTUALLY get to put in their two cents worth, maybe it should be when Hart and the Business Manager are out of the room.
One member of the audience pointed out that what with the price of fuel, he finds it costly to see the school buses drive by with 2 or 3 students two or three times a day. He thinks a better way should be found to plan the transportation of students that is more fuel efficient.
Some one BEFORE me spoke up an wanted to know what was going to be done about the Business Manager contract that expires June 30 - and what about the Bonus that position gets. Hart stated that he removed bonuses from all contracts last year! Mr Hart MISSPOKE when he said that. He did eliminate the bonus clauses from those individuals who had one year contracts. Those individuals received new one-year contracts which do not currently contain bonus clauses. HOWEVER, the Business Manager had/has a THREE YEAR contract that does not expire until June 30 2010. And her contract did and currently DOES have a bonus clause. Just as those contracts he referenced earlier in the meetings belonging to individuals who will receive pay raises this year because it is "contractually obligated", so will the district be contractually obligated to pay the $5,000. bonus to the Business Manager providing she meets the two stipulations: saving 1% of the budget and provides a successful audit.
This writer will admit I piggy-backed on that speaker saying that since the joint committee has stated more than once that ALL ideas are on the table for consideration for the purpose of saving the district money - the S/B could be currently advertising the Business manager position for $50,000 and be saving $25,000. Well, one could tell this writer had more than tweaked the tail of a Sacred Cow - upset the treaty of a Favored Nation - picked on the Superintendent's Pet. Hart practically came across the table, eyes flashing to such an extent Teisl almost was having to restrain him. According to Hart, the current Business Manager is also the Food Manager, the Federal Grant Administrator and I couldn't keep track of how many other positions he said the district would have to hire at so many more thousands of dollars. Amazing. Not part of the Duties and Responsibilities of that position as currently written. And how many Federal grants have we received that other Business Managers don't do in the normal course of their job? And remember - we taxpayers are currently paying for an additional part-time person in that office "to help the Business Manager do her work." That was the justification for the extra day we funded in last year's budget...
Of course, Hart said HE did ll those jobs when he was Superintendent - AND there were four full-time additional people in that office helping him. Do any of your readers know any of this history? Considering that it was Hart who brought Regan on born as Assistant Superintendent and she didn't know anything (reportedly) about how to run the Business office.....and then he was the one recommending her as Superintendent when he retired the first time.... Maybe the SAD 63 S/B should keep a careful eye on how much they let him dictate to them - or us - who is left behind after June 30.
First, the "official parties" at the table: Ralph Russell, citizen rep from Eddington; Jackie Smallwood, citizen rep from Holden; Selectman Harvey from Holden; Mario Teisl, School Board member from Holden and Chairman of the S/B's Budget & Finance Committee (BFC); Ray Hart, Interim Superintendent; Don Varnum, School Member from Holden and apparently the new BFC member to replace Therese Anderson who was a committee member but, as the new S/B Chairman cannot sit as a committee member; Yvonne Mitchell, SAD 63 Business manager; Fred Rosenberg, citizen rep from Clifton; Penny Peasley, Selectwomen from Clifton; and Charles Baker, Selectman from Eddington. Sylvia Ellis, School Board member from Holden and the third BFC member was absent.
Meeting was called to order at 5:38pm and the Minutes of the March 3rd meeting were approved by the group as a whole. Teisl read aloud a letter he had drafted for the group's review to Senator Richard Rosen (a duplicate also had been prepared for Representative Ben Pratt) which, in general, explains the situation of SAD 63 and invites (each elected official) to attend a joint B&FC/Financial Advisory Committee Meeting. As the Legislature is currently is session, it is unknown if either or both will attend, but it is felt as elected representatives they should be aware of the serious financial situation the school district is facing - primarily caused by the Legislature and Commissioner Gendron (although that is not specifically pointed out in the letters). Selectwoman Peasley read the letter "of invitation" the Clifton Board of Selectmen has already send to the two gentlemen. NOTE: Area voters, taxpayers and district teachers are also encouraged to send similar letters. Addresses are provided at the conclusion of this posting.
Teisl pointed out the the joint committee (B&FC/FAC) is only looking at alternatives at this point. No decisions have been made as yet. The joint committee is doing Due Diligence this year - being TRANSPARENT in its considerations so that when members attend their various Town Meetings and questions are asked (re: School Budget) committee members will be able to answer whatever questions may come up.
Teisl also pointed out that he had done some research following the March 3 meeting because a S/B member in the audience had pointed out S/B policy states that any hiring (of an Interim Superintendent) falls under the responsibility/authority of the S/B's Personnel Committee and not the B&FC. Teisl stated the S/B member was correct; however there is no Personnel Committee. NOTE: That is because policy states a Personnel Committee is appointed only as needed. In fact, other than for the position of Superintendent, all personnel are (usually) recruited by the Superintendent and then recommended to the S/B by the Superintendent. But the S/B's Personnel Committee is responsible for advertising, interviewing, voting for and hiring the Superintendent BECAUSE the Superintendent is the EMPLOYEE of the S/B. Why the S/B did not appoint a Personnel Committee back in January when the new Chair was elected - so as to be pre-active - is a question we all should be asking since the matter of the Interim Superintendent's and Business Manager's contracts expiring June 30, 2010 has been known for over a year.
Teisl also said that he was going to utilize some latitude in his position of Chair. While some issues can only be acted on by S/B members (and therefore only the B&FC), he was include to consider the FAC an integral component of the decisions and evaluations of what needed to be looked at and evaluated. Therefore, he was inclined whenever permissible to consider the workings of the group as a "joint committee." He asked for a show of hands to indicate approval. It was unanimously approved by those in attendance.
Therefore, as Teisl noted, the Joint committee - or the B&FC, in reality - does not have the authority to make any decision regarding WHO should/would be placed in the Interim Superintendent position. The B&FC could only recommend to the FULL S/B regarding any candidate for the position. However, Teisl stated, "under special circumstances", the B&FC could waive traditional methods of advertising (for the position). NOTE: It should be pointed out that since Ellis did not attend this meeting, the legality of any B&FC action could be challenged because it requires ALL three members of the committee to be in attendance to conduct any committee business. So while Teisl did make the motion to recommend to the Full S/B that Dave Anderson be hired as the Interim Superintendent effective July 1 - and Don Varnum seconded the motion - and the two of them considered the motion carried, because Ellis was not there..... Anyway, the meeting went forth and Teisl acknowledged that without Ellis in attendance, anything the B&FC did was "advisory only."
It was pointed out that should Anderson be appointed by the S/B to the position, he would receive $75,000 in salary for his position as principal of Holden school, $15,000 as Interim Superintendent (unlike the $45,000 which Hart stated he has been receiving), and one other figure for something this writer didn't hear - maybe mileage to the numerous meetings and the required visitations to the other two schools (Holbrook and Eddington).
Hart stated "he had taken off the table" the elimination of the superintendent's secretary's position.
Hart was then asked to report on his "assignments" from the previous meeting. His first order of "information" was to state that he didn't know where the idea had come from that it would cost $49,000. to move the Central Services office from Holbrook School to Holden School. Hart said it wouldn't cost anything because district staff could move the Central Services Office themselves and it would cost anything. NOTE: Several people had written down his statements re: the cost from the March 3 meeting which is why it had been repeated and "discussed" in several circles.
Hart also reported the original concept of contracting (with Brewer) for a base tuition and that parents of students attending any other high school charging a higher tuition would have to pay the difference out of their own pocket did not appear to have the benefit of $200,000. it originally was thought to have. The actual benefit looked to be more along the lines of $83,000 or thereabouts. NOTE: This subject came up later when Kevin Mills, S/B member from Holden who was in the audience, brought up the matter. I'm bringing it up here out of chronological order to keep issue information together. First: Voters in each town would have to vote in a special Referendum as to the base tuition/parents pay the costs above that amount if their student attends a different high school. Then: Kevin pointed out that it was logical any contract with Brewer would result in Brewer requiring SAD 63 to turnover the "technology funds" that were eliminated from the SAD 63 budget last year ($86,000). Immediately, Hart wanted that issue discarded because it was separate from the tuition issue. "Apples and oranges." But it wasn't. And Teisl was caught in the middle. Comments from the audience showed that Kevin had a genuine issue. And the voters certainly would have a right to know ALL of the factors before voting. NOTE: Earlier in the evening's discussion, Hart had stated that if he had been permitted to say anything at the Public Hearing last May when voters were deciding to eliminated the $86,000 from the SAD 63 budget (because Brewer wasn't going forth with the program which would have required the funding to accompany SAD 63 students who were going on to Brewer High School), Hart would have opposed removing that money from the budget - because he would have used that money (our tax money) elsewhere. (!)
So - back to the issue - once it was acknowledged that there would be NO cost savings by contracting with Brewer High School, that issue was dropped like a rock.
Hart reported his contacts indicated no other district was interested in contracting with SAD 63 to provide SAD 63 Central Services. He did state he was waiting to hear back for a legal opinion regarding IF SAD 63 could contract for a base tuition (although with the issue of technology funds as noted above, that issue does not appear likely to go anywhere - at least with Brewer.)
Hart did point out that SAD 63, like the State of Maine, currently has UNFUNDED LIABILITIES, some of which are contractual obligations. It did take some time before he was willing to acknowledge that the "contractual obligation" are issues such as the district paying for advance degree courses taken by teachers already employed by the district and an item which can be negotiated in the contract currently "on the table." What wasn't discussed is that the two parties negotiating for the Board (aka Management) are Board Chairwoman Anderson - a university professor and teacher, and Hart. To be fair, Anderson does get the "There is no more money" picture. Hart, on the other hand, acknowledged Wednesday night, that he was the individual who, when he first became SAD 63 Superintendent, initiated the requirement that teachers take advanced courses and that the district pay for them. Somehow, the idea that he would advocate that cost be eliminated from the budget doesn't seem too promising. One unfunded liability is the district's Sick Bank. This writer believes other unfunded liabilities were listed by Hart but my notes do not include them. The current teachers' contract expires August 2010.
There was some feedback regarding any savings if the teachers took on 1% of the cost of their health insurance costs (single with children, family, etc.). After looking at the costs and how much that would ultimately cost the teachers in dollars annually compared to their income, it was thought to be too much of a hardship to ask of the teachers who already pick up a portion of those costs.
There was a suggestion that the contract negotiation could include options for teachers to choose from. That didn't seem to fly very high. The current expectation is that (according to the proposed budget) any new contracts will include NO pay increases. BUT, when the economic situation changes (maybe in four years according to Hart) pay raises will then compensate for time lost. In the meantime, there are some individuals who have contracts that will not expire in 2010 and those contracts do include an annual pay increase that must be honored.
Hart presented information regarding how costs had changed from original program mandates and cost-sharing, showing that while original costs had been shared more by the Federal and State government for special programs, those dollars had been reduced and the costs transferred to the local districts.
Selectwoman Peasley stated her community had a population of 759 people (of which approximately 150 are children attending SAD 63 schools). She further stated her town office currently has several pages of names of towns people who are delinquent in 2009-2010 property taxes. The implication was clear: If they can't pay what they owed for 2009-2010, there should be not expectation they will be able to pay even higher property taxes for 2010-2011. This blog posted similar information in recent days relating to the town of Eddington.
The citizen rep from Holden did provide some significant contributions. She had taken the proposed budget developed by the Business Manager and reviewed it line-by-line, comparing it to previous years and seeing what amounts could be cut. (Comparative year line item Monthly Financial Statements have been requested for at least two years from the Business Manager - requests that have gone ignored.) Through this careful review - finding a few thousand dollars here and several hundreds of dollars there, the citizen rep totaled $100,000. in possible cost savings that could be made in the 2010-2011 budget. It was the most beneficial aspect of the meeting and several members at the table acknowledged it as such. Others not so much. This writer will leave to the reader to figure out who that might have been. Maybe you had to be there.
There was some discussion about bringing payroll back into Central Office - for a contracted savings of $6,500. Many people believe the computer program already owned by the district is capable of producing the payroll once the Business Manager keys in the data - and it would be immediately capable of correcting any errors instead of making the employee wait two weeks for a corrected check. NOTE: Payroll used to be done in house and any errors were immediately corrected. And it didn't take $6,500 of taxpayer money and employee hardship to get the job done - just someone in the Business Office to do the job.
There was some extensive discussion about moving the 4th grade to Holbrook, even though there appear to be many parents who are not in agreement or happy about the idea. The citizen rep from Holden felt it will impact the young children in areas of learning, emotions and socially. She wanted to know if there were any psychological or educational studies to support children at the age of 4th graders in schools with 7th and 8th graders. it should be noted that some people spoke up to say that the young ones rode on the same school buses with the older students. Teisl said he would try to find some research information at the U of Maine/Orono.
The citizen rep from Clifton asked what if the S/B closed Holden School instead of Eddington School. THAT went up in smoke! Then the joint group sent its meeting schedule:
March 18 - Thursday
March 22 - School Board Meeting
March 24 had to be changed - moved to March 30 but that will be changed because it is the date for the Eddington Town Meeting. Will Post next week of new date.
April 7 - Wednesday. Final Budget has to be done
May 12 - Wednesday - Public Hearing of SAD 63 Proposed Budget - Holbrook School
May 17 - Monday - Special Meeting of the School Board - Final Approval of the Budget
May 19 - Wednesday - Development and Posting of Warrant Articles by the School Board
June 3 - Thursday - Annual Budget Meeting of the School Board
June 8 - Tuesday - Referendum Vote by Voters in all three towns on the School Budget
At 7:30pm the people in the audience finally got to ask questions and/or comment. At this point approximately half of the people had left, including Charles Bake who had left at 6:55pm.
There were six people who wanted to comment or has questions. Some of the comments had to do with moving the 4th grade to Holbrook. No one was in favor. NOTE: It should be pointed out that while all three principals have been in attendance for these two meetings - from beginning to end - none have been asked their opinion about anything except Dave Anderson regarding taking the Interim Superintendent position. Of course, how could they say anything in opposition to Hart who is the one who writes up their annual evaluation and controls their position. Even though Teisl says the principals will EVENTUALLY get to put in their two cents worth, maybe it should be when Hart and the Business Manager are out of the room.
One member of the audience pointed out that what with the price of fuel, he finds it costly to see the school buses drive by with 2 or 3 students two or three times a day. He thinks a better way should be found to plan the transportation of students that is more fuel efficient.
Some one BEFORE me spoke up an wanted to know what was going to be done about the Business Manager contract that expires June 30 - and what about the Bonus that position gets. Hart stated that he removed bonuses from all contracts last year! Mr Hart MISSPOKE when he said that. He did eliminate the bonus clauses from those individuals who had one year contracts. Those individuals received new one-year contracts which do not currently contain bonus clauses. HOWEVER, the Business Manager had/has a THREE YEAR contract that does not expire until June 30 2010. And her contract did and currently DOES have a bonus clause. Just as those contracts he referenced earlier in the meetings belonging to individuals who will receive pay raises this year because it is "contractually obligated", so will the district be contractually obligated to pay the $5,000. bonus to the Business Manager providing she meets the two stipulations: saving 1% of the budget and provides a successful audit.
This writer will admit I piggy-backed on that speaker saying that since the joint committee has stated more than once that ALL ideas are on the table for consideration for the purpose of saving the district money - the S/B could be currently advertising the Business manager position for $50,000 and be saving $25,000. Well, one could tell this writer had more than tweaked the tail of a Sacred Cow - upset the treaty of a Favored Nation - picked on the Superintendent's Pet. Hart practically came across the table, eyes flashing to such an extent Teisl almost was having to restrain him. According to Hart, the current Business Manager is also the Food Manager, the Federal Grant Administrator and I couldn't keep track of how many other positions he said the district would have to hire at so many more thousands of dollars. Amazing. Not part of the Duties and Responsibilities of that position as currently written. And how many Federal grants have we received that other Business Managers don't do in the normal course of their job? And remember - we taxpayers are currently paying for an additional part-time person in that office "to help the Business Manager do her work." That was the justification for the extra day we funded in last year's budget...
Of course, Hart said HE did ll those jobs when he was Superintendent - AND there were four full-time additional people in that office helping him. Do any of your readers know any of this history? Considering that it was Hart who brought Regan on born as Assistant Superintendent and she didn't know anything (reportedly) about how to run the Business office.....and then he was the one recommending her as Superintendent when he retired the first time.... Maybe the SAD 63 S/B should keep a careful eye on how much they let him dictate to them - or us - who is left behind after June 30.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
EDDINGTON TOWN LIENS & FORECLOSURES
In talking with a member of the staff at Eddington Town Office the other day, I learned the Office has had to place more liens on properties this year than in years past. NOTE: "Liens" occur when people have not paid their property taxes - taxes which not only support town government expenses but, in the case of Eddington, are 51% comprised of costs imposed by the SAD 63 school budget.
When the Town Office had to call to notify the associated banks of the aforementioned Liens, the Town Office learned that 4 of the homes were in FORECLOSURE. As sad as it is to say, this is all a part of the financial and economic times. So when we say, over and over, to those involved in the budgeting process relating to the SAD 63 school budget that THERE IS NO MORE MONEY, perhaps some one will begin to listen - hopefully.
As to spending $49,000.00 to relocate the Central Office of SAD 63 from the Holbrook Middle School to the Holden School under the current fiscal situation - "LUDICROUS" doesn't begin to describe the expenditure.
When the Town Office had to call to notify the associated banks of the aforementioned Liens, the Town Office learned that 4 of the homes were in FORECLOSURE. As sad as it is to say, this is all a part of the financial and economic times. So when we say, over and over, to those involved in the budgeting process relating to the SAD 63 school budget that THERE IS NO MORE MONEY, perhaps some one will begin to listen - hopefully.
As to spending $49,000.00 to relocate the Central Office of SAD 63 from the Holbrook Middle School to the Holden School under the current fiscal situation - "LUDICROUS" doesn't begin to describe the expenditure.
MAINE STATE GOVERNMENT PROPOSES TAKING ON ADDITIONAL BOND DEBT
As if it were not bad enough that the State government cannot - will not - fund its portion of public education, now it wants to take on MORE public debt. Debt it will eventually pass on to us, the local taxpayer in the form of even higher property taxes. Listen to the latest coming out of Augusta... thanks to an Alert from the Maine Heritage Policy Center which has developed a petition regarding NEW BONDS being proposed...
"We, the undersigned citizens and taxpayers of Maine, call on elected officials to reject new proposals that would add to Maine's existing $14,200,000,000 public debt. Our current debt totals more than $27,000 per Maine household. Enough is enough.
Some sources of Maine's current debt:
$4,200,000,000 - Moral Obligation Bonds
$3,995,000,000 - Unfunded Liability for the Maine State Retirement System
$ 507,690,000 - General Obligation Bonds
$ 183,040,000 - Transcap (debt to be paid by future state revenue)
$ 75,550,000 - GARVEE (debt to be paid by future federal transportation funds)
$ 35,260,000 - Capital Leases
$ 14,530,000 - Bond Anticipation Notes
*Source: Maine Office of the Treasurer
Adding to this public debt with additional bonds jeopardizes the economic security of future generations of Mainers. We cannot afford new bonds that will bury Maine people under an increasing mountain of debt.
At a time when Maine families and small businesses are struggling to stay afloat, "No More Debt" should be the principle of the Maine Legislature."
As we here in Eddington, Clifton and Holden are facing a $800,000 "shortfall" in the 2010-2011 school budget, the last thing we need to hear from our state government "leaders" is the idea of adding more debt when this state cannot even fulfill its responsibilities to us in the form of its share of public school funding (not to mention the 55% the taxpayers voted the state pay for three years ago and which the state has never complied with). If you agree that additional state debt is a bad idea, write to State Senate President Libby Mitchell, State Senator Richard Rosen, or State Representative Ben Pratt and let them know we'd prefer they pay the bills they already have - WE, the taxpayers, can't afford any more state debt.
"We, the undersigned citizens and taxpayers of Maine, call on elected officials to reject new proposals that would add to Maine's existing $14,200,000,000 public debt. Our current debt totals more than $27,000 per Maine household. Enough is enough.
Some sources of Maine's current debt:
$4,200,000,000 - Moral Obligation Bonds
$3,995,000,000 - Unfunded Liability for the Maine State Retirement System
$ 507,690,000 - General Obligation Bonds
$ 183,040,000 - Transcap (debt to be paid by future state revenue)
$ 75,550,000 - GARVEE (debt to be paid by future federal transportation funds)
$ 35,260,000 - Capital Leases
$ 14,530,000 - Bond Anticipation Notes
*Source: Maine Office of the Treasurer
Adding to this public debt with additional bonds jeopardizes the economic security of future generations of Mainers. We cannot afford new bonds that will bury Maine people under an increasing mountain of debt.
At a time when Maine families and small businesses are struggling to stay afloat, "No More Debt" should be the principle of the Maine Legislature."
As we here in Eddington, Clifton and Holden are facing a $800,000 "shortfall" in the 2010-2011 school budget, the last thing we need to hear from our state government "leaders" is the idea of adding more debt when this state cannot even fulfill its responsibilities to us in the form of its share of public school funding (not to mention the 55% the taxpayers voted the state pay for three years ago and which the state has never complied with). If you agree that additional state debt is a bad idea, write to State Senate President Libby Mitchell, State Senator Richard Rosen, or State Representative Ben Pratt and let them know we'd prefer they pay the bills they already have - WE, the taxpayers, can't afford any more state debt.
BALDACCI'S PROPOSALS TOO WEAK TO QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL EDUCATION GRANTS
The following is from an email received from the Maine Heritage Policy Center:
"Gov's proposals too weak to compete for federal education grant
At a public hearing last Thursday, MHPC Education Policy Director Steve Bowen testified in opposition to three bills put forth by the Baldacci administration. These bills fail to offer bold education reforms to make Maine competitive for up to $75 million in federal education grants.
The Race to the Top Grant was established by President Obama and the federal Department of Education to incentivize bold education reforms. These reforms include an expansion of charter schools, improved school and teacher assessments, and higher standards to hold teachers and administrators accountable for poor performance; reforms MHPC has long-championed.
During his testimony, Steve noted the stiff competition for this grant funding. The governor's three proposals (LD 1799, 1800, and 1801) offer lip service to the grant requirements but fall far short of the changes Maine needs to improve education quality and win additional federal funding.
Both the Kennebec Journal and the Lewiston Sun Journal quoted Steve in their reports. Steve has also offered to work with the Legislature's Education Committee and Maine's Education Commissioner to strengthen the governor's proposals to achieve real, student-focused education reforms."
***
In light of the fact the Commissioner of Education cannot even comply with Maine consolidation law, cannot even respond to letters as directed by that law, thereby placing communities and existing MSADs in positions where they can do nothing but face pending tax penalties they cannot afford - this writer would not expect either she or the Legislature's Education Committee to accept Steve Bowen's generous offer.
"Gov's proposals too weak to compete for federal education grant
At a public hearing last Thursday, MHPC Education Policy Director Steve Bowen testified in opposition to three bills put forth by the Baldacci administration. These bills fail to offer bold education reforms to make Maine competitive for up to $75 million in federal education grants.
The Race to the Top Grant was established by President Obama and the federal Department of Education to incentivize bold education reforms. These reforms include an expansion of charter schools, improved school and teacher assessments, and higher standards to hold teachers and administrators accountable for poor performance; reforms MHPC has long-championed.
During his testimony, Steve noted the stiff competition for this grant funding. The governor's three proposals (LD 1799, 1800, and 1801) offer lip service to the grant requirements but fall far short of the changes Maine needs to improve education quality and win additional federal funding.
Both the Kennebec Journal and the Lewiston Sun Journal quoted Steve in their reports. Steve has also offered to work with the Legislature's Education Committee and Maine's Education Commissioner to strengthen the governor's proposals to achieve real, student-focused education reforms."
***
In light of the fact the Commissioner of Education cannot even comply with Maine consolidation law, cannot even respond to letters as directed by that law, thereby placing communities and existing MSADs in positions where they can do nothing but face pending tax penalties they cannot afford - this writer would not expect either she or the Legislature's Education Committee to accept Steve Bowen's generous offer.
Monday, March 8, 2010
SAD 63 BUDGET CUTS & SACRED COWS WITH A $8000,000 DEFICIT
Last Wednesday the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) of the SAD 63 School Board met at Holbrook Middle School. It will meet again this Wednesday at 5:30pm.
Last week's meeting resulted in the largest turnout of any School Board meeting or S/B committee meeting, other than the annual Public Hearing for the upcoming proposed annual school district budget, we've seen in several years. There were over 14 citizens/parents in addition to district employees and FAC members in attendance.
FAC members in attendance included: S/B Chair Therese Anderson from Eddington who is automatically an Ad Hoc member; Jackie Smallwood, citizen rep from Holden; Holden Selectman Harvey; S/B member Mario Teisl from Holden who is the Budget & Finance Committee Chair; Interim Superintendent Hart; Ralph Russell, citizen rep from Eddington who is also the B Basketball coach in the district and working for the district's technical operations; Sylvia Ellis, S/B member from Holden; Yvonne Mitchell, SAD 63 Business Manager; Fred Rosenberg, citizen rep from Clifton; Penny Peasly, Selectwoman from Clifton; and Don Varnum, S/B member from Holden.
Mario Teisl asked those citizens who were in attendance to hold their comments and suggestions until AFTER the FAC had completed its agenda. NOTE: Those comments and suggestions were finally allowed after 7pm. Teisl also stated that the purpose of the FAC was to put all possibilities for reducing the district's budget "on the table for consideration" and that no decisions would be made until taken to the full Board. The next School Board meeting is Monday, March 22.
The first order of business appeared to be the issue of who/how to fill the Interim Superintendent's position that will become vacant effective July 1, 2010 with the termination of Mr. Hart's contract on June 30, 2010. In the course of discussion, Hart explained he would like to have his successor named ASAP so that person could "shadow" Hart during the remaining months for meetings, decisions, etc.
Teisl broached the possibility of Dave Anderson accepting the position of Interim Superintendent, since Anderson had held the position prior to Hart being hired. The FAC asked Anderson, who was present, if he was willing to accept the Interim Superintendent position. Anderson said he was "under certain conditions" which he was asked to out forward. Anderson stated that he like his position as Principal of the Holden School and believed that the Principal should be a presence in his school. As Superintendent there were responsibilities that would require him to be in the District's Central Office - currently located at Holbrook Middle School.
The FAC stated they were prepared to spend $49K (thousand) to relocate the Central Services to the Holden School. ISSUE: At a time when we are trying to reduce current costs by $800,000, why would we agree to SPEND $49,000.00 to temporarily relocate the Central Office to Holden School? The Interim Superintendent is a temporary position, isn't it? Or is the relocation of the Central Office intended to be a permanent relocation? If so, WHY?
The argument that Teisl (and Hart) were making for Anderson (and it was practically a "done deal" to hear the discussion) was that it was to save money in the budget. (Otherwise, district policy clearly states that recruitment and hiring of even an interim position is the responsibility of the district's Personnel Committee - a fact that was brought to the attention of the FAC once the "audience" was allowed to speak.)
The former superintendent made a full-time salary that began at $77,000/year and ended at $87,447/year plus very generous benefits. The Interim Superintendent has been paid $600.00/week - at a rate of $200.00 per full day which includes an extensive list of meetings requiring the Superintendent's attendance. Mileage to/from Holbrook School to attend meetings was included as well as fees for required workshops and/or meetings as the S/B deemed mandatory. A weekly presence in all three schools has been required by the S/B even though it has been flexible depending on the needs of the district of S/B. At the rate of $600. per week times 4 weeks per month times 12 months per year, the rate is $28,800 for a year. This allows for a month's vacation. Add $49,000 (to move Central Office to Holbrook School) to $28,800 (the Interim Superintendent salary) and you get $77,808. which is very close to what the former superintendent received her first year as full-time superintendent and only $10,000. less than her compensation her last year. We should be seriously questioning the wisdom of the $49,000 expenditure.
HOWEVER - if we are going to look at positions in order to see where money can be saved, let us look at the position of the Business Manager. That contract, originally signed 7/25/08, is a three-year contract commencing July 1, 2008 and scheduled to end June 30, 2010. While the position provides certain services to CSD 8 for a separate compensation, the compensation package provided by SAD 63 includes the following:
A salary of no less than $72,800.00 (documented compensation as of 2007-08, an increase of $2,400 from the previous year);
NOTE: This is equal to the salary of two of the Principals
Thirteen days of paid sick leave per year accumulative to a total of 130 days;
The position has the option of participating in the District's 304B Plan. The position may set aside a maximum of $15,500 and no less than 3% for her salary each year and have it matched by the District. And every year after her after her second year of employment in the position, the District will continue the 3% match;
The position is entitled to Personal Leave at any time at the discretion of the Superintendent;
The position receives health and accident insurance coverage as follows: 100% toward Full Family Medical, $335 toward Dental and 100% towards a Death and Disability Insurance Policy; NOTE: This is higher that that provided to the Principals.
The position shall be entitled to at least the same level of all benefits that are provided to the teachers;
The position is entitled to six (6) weeks of paid vacation to be taken at her discretion other than the time immediately before and during the passage of the School Budget. Unused accrued vacation may be drawn down annually with the permission of the Superintendent, unpaid unused vacation is payable to the position upon termination of the contract;
A bonus of $5,000 will be granted to the position for completion of the mutually agreed upon goal of: One percent (1%) of the 2008-2009/2009-2010) Budget is saved) and a Successful completion of the (required) audit.
In light of the fact that the position received a $7,000.00 compensation increase from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, it is reasonable to believe the 2009-2010 compensation is higher than $75,000.
SO - this writer's question is: Why aren't we looking for an Interim Business Manager for the same reason we are looking for an Interim Superintendent? Better Yet - why aren't we looking to advertise/recruit a new Business Manager in the $50K annual compensation range. There are PLENTY of highly qualified people, many currently employed, who would jump at that salary and benefits who would be willing to produce the Financial statement formats people have been asking for the past two years, who would produce accurate, detailed MONTHLY statements (you needed to hear the explanation for the projected increase in Maintenance salaries to understand THIS). And we could save upwards of $25K or more.
Now the one promising idea that WAS presented last week...
Hart stated he had met someone who offered an idea worth $200,000. The district could contract with one high school for a flat tuition - to set a benchmark for high school tuition to be paid by the district (it could be Brewer High School or Bangor.) District students could still exercise the "option choice" and go to any high school. BUT, if the tuition was higher than that benchmark, the family would have to pick up any costs above the benchmark. Anderson directed Hart to do two things before this week's meeting: (1) check out the details of that proposal, (2) check out the legality as it would apply to "school choice" districts. It is possible that this issue would have to be brought before the voters of the district to be confirmed.
There was was quite a bit of discussion about the future economic picture. Hart stated it will be very hard this year but even harder next year - and beyond horrid next year if we don't take several difficult steps this year. His projections are that it will be 3-4 years before "things" will get better. He stated that looking at closing one of the schools may have to be addressed - and the Eddington School was the ONLY school mentioned.
Hart said that the district may find that closing the Eddington School may save the district $520K+/-. Therese pointed out that the issue would probably have to be brought before the voters in Eddington. Hart stated that, if that were the case, part of the issue would have to include (for Eddington voters) that Eddington would have to pick up the $520K on top of their regular school budget allocation if the voters turned down the school closure. NOTE THIS: According to Hart, ONLY Eddington property owners would have to pick up that $520K on top of the Eddington share of the school budget. Granted, the meeting didn't suggest the school closure THIS year, but the gist of the discussion was that the decision might be needed in one to two years out (and there was quite a bit of discussion about consolidating grades). BTW - Nowhere was there any hint of closing the Holden School.
Based on the foretelling of closing the Eddington School (and that Charles Baker, Selectman from Eddington was a "no show), I called Russell Smith last Thursday. One of my questions to Russell was, "What would be the impact on property values if the Eddington School was closed?" I'm still waiting for an answer.
IN THE MEANTIME: Commissioner Gendron had not answered the Letters of Intent filed by Orrington and Dedham in December (even though state law required a response in 12days.) Commissioner Gendron had not responded as of March 3 to Chairwoman Anderson's letter from SAD 63 filed in January requesting direction because of the Orrington/Dedham situation. The Legislature had not responded to Commissioner Gendron's petition filed last year to allow districts with fewer than 1200 students to become RSUs. BUT the Legislature was not willing to defer tax penalties to those districts were having problems forming an RSU. EVEN OUR SENATOR RICHARD ROSEN WAS VOTING AGAINST DEFERRAL!
Clifton's Board of Selectmen have sent letters to Senator Rosen and House Represenative Ben Pratt (Eddington) requesting they attend one of the FAC meetings to see the difficulties the district and voters are facing. You readers might also want to participate in sending such an "invitation." It is expected that Eddington Selectmen will do the same. Remaining meetings in March are scheduled for:
Wednesday, March 10
Thursday, March 18
Wednesday, March 24
All are scheduled for 5:30pm at the Holbrook School.
BTW - Hart didn't think much of my idea that the teachers contribute 3-5-10% of their pay (maybe the Principals, too, since they're making over $70,000/year plus benefits). He felt since "this country bailed out GM, Wall Street Banks, etc. maybe those on Social Security should contribute 5-10% of their income." (No mention that many of the folks around here are retired and living on less than $20,000/year, lost over 40% of their retirement savings, some are disabled and can't work and many are in their 70s/80s. Of course he doesn't live around here and doesn't know who really is paying the district's bills. Guess none of that was relevant.)
Last week's meeting resulted in the largest turnout of any School Board meeting or S/B committee meeting, other than the annual Public Hearing for the upcoming proposed annual school district budget, we've seen in several years. There were over 14 citizens/parents in addition to district employees and FAC members in attendance.
FAC members in attendance included: S/B Chair Therese Anderson from Eddington who is automatically an Ad Hoc member; Jackie Smallwood, citizen rep from Holden; Holden Selectman Harvey; S/B member Mario Teisl from Holden who is the Budget & Finance Committee Chair; Interim Superintendent Hart; Ralph Russell, citizen rep from Eddington who is also the B Basketball coach in the district and working for the district's technical operations; Sylvia Ellis, S/B member from Holden; Yvonne Mitchell, SAD 63 Business Manager; Fred Rosenberg, citizen rep from Clifton; Penny Peasly, Selectwoman from Clifton; and Don Varnum, S/B member from Holden.
Mario Teisl asked those citizens who were in attendance to hold their comments and suggestions until AFTER the FAC had completed its agenda. NOTE: Those comments and suggestions were finally allowed after 7pm. Teisl also stated that the purpose of the FAC was to put all possibilities for reducing the district's budget "on the table for consideration" and that no decisions would be made until taken to the full Board. The next School Board meeting is Monday, March 22.
The first order of business appeared to be the issue of who/how to fill the Interim Superintendent's position that will become vacant effective July 1, 2010 with the termination of Mr. Hart's contract on June 30, 2010. In the course of discussion, Hart explained he would like to have his successor named ASAP so that person could "shadow" Hart during the remaining months for meetings, decisions, etc.
Teisl broached the possibility of Dave Anderson accepting the position of Interim Superintendent, since Anderson had held the position prior to Hart being hired. The FAC asked Anderson, who was present, if he was willing to accept the Interim Superintendent position. Anderson said he was "under certain conditions" which he was asked to out forward. Anderson stated that he like his position as Principal of the Holden School and believed that the Principal should be a presence in his school. As Superintendent there were responsibilities that would require him to be in the District's Central Office - currently located at Holbrook Middle School.
The FAC stated they were prepared to spend $49K (thousand) to relocate the Central Services to the Holden School. ISSUE: At a time when we are trying to reduce current costs by $800,000, why would we agree to SPEND $49,000.00 to temporarily relocate the Central Office to Holden School? The Interim Superintendent is a temporary position, isn't it? Or is the relocation of the Central Office intended to be a permanent relocation? If so, WHY?
The argument that Teisl (and Hart) were making for Anderson (and it was practically a "done deal" to hear the discussion) was that it was to save money in the budget. (Otherwise, district policy clearly states that recruitment and hiring of even an interim position is the responsibility of the district's Personnel Committee - a fact that was brought to the attention of the FAC once the "audience" was allowed to speak.)
The former superintendent made a full-time salary that began at $77,000/year and ended at $87,447/year plus very generous benefits. The Interim Superintendent has been paid $600.00/week - at a rate of $200.00 per full day which includes an extensive list of meetings requiring the Superintendent's attendance. Mileage to/from Holbrook School to attend meetings was included as well as fees for required workshops and/or meetings as the S/B deemed mandatory. A weekly presence in all three schools has been required by the S/B even though it has been flexible depending on the needs of the district of S/B. At the rate of $600. per week times 4 weeks per month times 12 months per year, the rate is $28,800 for a year. This allows for a month's vacation. Add $49,000 (to move Central Office to Holbrook School) to $28,800 (the Interim Superintendent salary) and you get $77,808. which is very close to what the former superintendent received her first year as full-time superintendent and only $10,000. less than her compensation her last year. We should be seriously questioning the wisdom of the $49,000 expenditure.
HOWEVER - if we are going to look at positions in order to see where money can be saved, let us look at the position of the Business Manager. That contract, originally signed 7/25/08, is a three-year contract commencing July 1, 2008 and scheduled to end June 30, 2010. While the position provides certain services to CSD 8 for a separate compensation, the compensation package provided by SAD 63 includes the following:
A salary of no less than $72,800.00 (documented compensation as of 2007-08, an increase of $2,400 from the previous year);
NOTE: This is equal to the salary of two of the Principals
Thirteen days of paid sick leave per year accumulative to a total of 130 days;
The position has the option of participating in the District's 304B Plan. The position may set aside a maximum of $15,500 and no less than 3% for her salary each year and have it matched by the District. And every year after her after her second year of employment in the position, the District will continue the 3% match;
The position is entitled to Personal Leave at any time at the discretion of the Superintendent;
The position receives health and accident insurance coverage as follows: 100% toward Full Family Medical, $335 toward Dental and 100% towards a Death and Disability Insurance Policy; NOTE: This is higher that that provided to the Principals.
The position shall be entitled to at least the same level of all benefits that are provided to the teachers;
The position is entitled to six (6) weeks of paid vacation to be taken at her discretion other than the time immediately before and during the passage of the School Budget. Unused accrued vacation may be drawn down annually with the permission of the Superintendent, unpaid unused vacation is payable to the position upon termination of the contract;
A bonus of $5,000 will be granted to the position for completion of the mutually agreed upon goal of: One percent (1%) of the 2008-2009/2009-2010) Budget is saved) and a Successful completion of the (required) audit.
In light of the fact that the position received a $7,000.00 compensation increase from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, it is reasonable to believe the 2009-2010 compensation is higher than $75,000.
SO - this writer's question is: Why aren't we looking for an Interim Business Manager for the same reason we are looking for an Interim Superintendent? Better Yet - why aren't we looking to advertise/recruit a new Business Manager in the $50K annual compensation range. There are PLENTY of highly qualified people, many currently employed, who would jump at that salary and benefits who would be willing to produce the Financial statement formats people have been asking for the past two years, who would produce accurate, detailed MONTHLY statements (you needed to hear the explanation for the projected increase in Maintenance salaries to understand THIS). And we could save upwards of $25K or more.
Now the one promising idea that WAS presented last week...
Hart stated he had met someone who offered an idea worth $200,000. The district could contract with one high school for a flat tuition - to set a benchmark for high school tuition to be paid by the district (it could be Brewer High School or Bangor.) District students could still exercise the "option choice" and go to any high school. BUT, if the tuition was higher than that benchmark, the family would have to pick up any costs above the benchmark. Anderson directed Hart to do two things before this week's meeting: (1) check out the details of that proposal, (2) check out the legality as it would apply to "school choice" districts. It is possible that this issue would have to be brought before the voters of the district to be confirmed.
There was was quite a bit of discussion about the future economic picture. Hart stated it will be very hard this year but even harder next year - and beyond horrid next year if we don't take several difficult steps this year. His projections are that it will be 3-4 years before "things" will get better. He stated that looking at closing one of the schools may have to be addressed - and the Eddington School was the ONLY school mentioned.
Hart said that the district may find that closing the Eddington School may save the district $520K+/-. Therese pointed out that the issue would probably have to be brought before the voters in Eddington. Hart stated that, if that were the case, part of the issue would have to include (for Eddington voters) that Eddington would have to pick up the $520K on top of their regular school budget allocation if the voters turned down the school closure. NOTE THIS: According to Hart, ONLY Eddington property owners would have to pick up that $520K on top of the Eddington share of the school budget. Granted, the meeting didn't suggest the school closure THIS year, but the gist of the discussion was that the decision might be needed in one to two years out (and there was quite a bit of discussion about consolidating grades). BTW - Nowhere was there any hint of closing the Holden School.
Based on the foretelling of closing the Eddington School (and that Charles Baker, Selectman from Eddington was a "no show), I called Russell Smith last Thursday. One of my questions to Russell was, "What would be the impact on property values if the Eddington School was closed?" I'm still waiting for an answer.
IN THE MEANTIME: Commissioner Gendron had not answered the Letters of Intent filed by Orrington and Dedham in December (even though state law required a response in 12days.) Commissioner Gendron had not responded as of March 3 to Chairwoman Anderson's letter from SAD 63 filed in January requesting direction because of the Orrington/Dedham situation. The Legislature had not responded to Commissioner Gendron's petition filed last year to allow districts with fewer than 1200 students to become RSUs. BUT the Legislature was not willing to defer tax penalties to those districts were having problems forming an RSU. EVEN OUR SENATOR RICHARD ROSEN WAS VOTING AGAINST DEFERRAL!
Clifton's Board of Selectmen have sent letters to Senator Rosen and House Represenative Ben Pratt (Eddington) requesting they attend one of the FAC meetings to see the difficulties the district and voters are facing. You readers might also want to participate in sending such an "invitation." It is expected that Eddington Selectmen will do the same. Remaining meetings in March are scheduled for:
Wednesday, March 10
Thursday, March 18
Wednesday, March 24
All are scheduled for 5:30pm at the Holbrook School.
BTW - Hart didn't think much of my idea that the teachers contribute 3-5-10% of their pay (maybe the Principals, too, since they're making over $70,000/year plus benefits). He felt since "this country bailed out GM, Wall Street Banks, etc. maybe those on Social Security should contribute 5-10% of their income." (No mention that many of the folks around here are retired and living on less than $20,000/year, lost over 40% of their retirement savings, some are disabled and can't work and many are in their 70s/80s. Of course he doesn't live around here and doesn't know who really is paying the district's bills. Guess none of that was relevant.)
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
SAD 63 TEACHERS & SCHOOL BOARD WANT THEIR CAKE & ALL THE FIXIN'S
Anyone looked at the latest school newsletters in SAD 63? Seems the School Board and teachers want to take their "budget" to the taxpayers to vote take on increased taxes so that the teachers can have pay increases and to avoid any teachers layoffs.
"Say What?" you ask. As though the taxpayers in Eddington, Clifton and Holden are flush with loose cash these days - what with the $167,000 tax penalty hanging over our heads from Augusta because the School Board has done absolutely NOTHING all year to get any kind of an RSU or AOS started, much less close to a taxpayer-approved vote in time for the mandated July 1, 2010 deadline. Or the $125,000 taxpayer-share of the lawsuit settlement the Board entered into in order to settle the lawsuit with the former superintendent.
How about the teachers take a 5-10% paycut to help retain whatever teachers might be facing a layoff? The taxpayers have been taking it between the eyes for year after year while the SAD 63 budget has been going up and up in spite of taxpayer cautions of what was coming - what has arrived...that the State was going belly-up as far as paying its share of public education costs in this state. Did SAD 63 heed the caution? No.
How about the teachers' union taking a cut in union dues to help out their members? Don't think this writer will hold her breath on that idea. The union's primary goal is to collect more money - either through more individual dues (through pay increases) or more members (as in more hires regardless of student/teacher ratios that are no longer justified).
So some teacher positions may be eliminated. Look at the data. Student population in this state has significantly reduced but class size per teacher stays small. Used to be 35-40 students per teacher with higher testing results. Now there are smaller classes and the test results are lower, too. And this state spends over $11,000 per student per year. SAD 63 teachers are paid at a higher rate than teachers in the Orrington School District according to Ray Hart, SAD 63 Interim Superintendent.
SAD 63 teachers should be happy just to have a job. If their pay scale were lowered by 5% they'd still be better off than if they were unemployed - like many of the taxpayers in our three towns, or the ones trying to live (and pay taxes) on their social security income alone.
If YOU have an opinion you'd like to share with the School Board, GO to one of the Budget & Finance Committee meetings at the Holbrook Middle School on Hwy 46 - 5:30PM (scheduled to be SURE it would be convenient for those taxpayers who work until 5PM, of course):
Wednesday - March 3, 10, 13, & 24
OR - attend the School Board meeting - Monday night, March 22 and SPEAK UP during the Public Access at the Beginning and End of the meeting. Maybe YOU'LL be able to get something done. For sure the Board has a problem doing anything - especially for any of the taxpayers who elected them.
"Say What?" you ask. As though the taxpayers in Eddington, Clifton and Holden are flush with loose cash these days - what with the $167,000 tax penalty hanging over our heads from Augusta because the School Board has done absolutely NOTHING all year to get any kind of an RSU or AOS started, much less close to a taxpayer-approved vote in time for the mandated July 1, 2010 deadline. Or the $125,000 taxpayer-share of the lawsuit settlement the Board entered into in order to settle the lawsuit with the former superintendent.
How about the teachers take a 5-10% paycut to help retain whatever teachers might be facing a layoff? The taxpayers have been taking it between the eyes for year after year while the SAD 63 budget has been going up and up in spite of taxpayer cautions of what was coming - what has arrived...that the State was going belly-up as far as paying its share of public education costs in this state. Did SAD 63 heed the caution? No.
How about the teachers' union taking a cut in union dues to help out their members? Don't think this writer will hold her breath on that idea. The union's primary goal is to collect more money - either through more individual dues (through pay increases) or more members (as in more hires regardless of student/teacher ratios that are no longer justified).
So some teacher positions may be eliminated. Look at the data. Student population in this state has significantly reduced but class size per teacher stays small. Used to be 35-40 students per teacher with higher testing results. Now there are smaller classes and the test results are lower, too. And this state spends over $11,000 per student per year. SAD 63 teachers are paid at a higher rate than teachers in the Orrington School District according to Ray Hart, SAD 63 Interim Superintendent.
SAD 63 teachers should be happy just to have a job. If their pay scale were lowered by 5% they'd still be better off than if they were unemployed - like many of the taxpayers in our three towns, or the ones trying to live (and pay taxes) on their social security income alone.
If YOU have an opinion you'd like to share with the School Board, GO to one of the Budget & Finance Committee meetings at the Holbrook Middle School on Hwy 46 - 5:30PM (scheduled to be SURE it would be convenient for those taxpayers who work until 5PM, of course):
Wednesday - March 3, 10, 13, & 24
OR - attend the School Board meeting - Monday night, March 22 and SPEAK UP during the Public Access at the Beginning and End of the meeting. Maybe YOU'LL be able to get something done. For sure the Board has a problem doing anything - especially for any of the taxpayers who elected them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
