As posted yesterday, I attended the luncheon in Bangor yesterday conducted by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. BTW, I am finding that this organization does not appear to be aligned with one political party or another, but more with Accountable Government. Isn't that something we all should be pursuing? It's difficult these days when we try to find objective reporting of news and information.
The luncheon speaker was Steve Bowen, the Center's Director for Education Excellence. As a former teacher, Mr Bowen is both motivated to look at the subject of his presentation which had to do with the state of Maine education and current education issues, but he is also an excellent speaker. He was well armed with facts from a variety of professional and objective sources that evaluate the state of Maine's public education as compared to public education across the nation. Bottom Line: Maine is not doing so well.
Because of the vast amount of information I obtained (my fingers could barely write fast enough. Mr. Bowen kindly agreed to send me copies of his slides), there will be several postings over the next few weeks to present the information in detail.
However, think about the following: From 1992 to 2007, Maine has increased the spending per pupil 113 % while the inflation rate during the same period has gone up only 46 %. In 2007 (the most recent year when data is available), Maine was spending $11,387/per pupil while the national average was $9,666/per pupil for the same year. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
The Maine Residency Enrollment for Elementary and Secondary schools in 1995-96 was just under 220,000. During that same period the student teacher ratio in Maine schools was 14.5:1.
In 2008, the Maine Residency Enrollment for Elementary and Secondary schools was just under 195,000. During that period, the student teacher ratio was 11.5/1 (fewer student population = smaller classrooms = lower student/teacher ratio).
Maine school MEA test scores in the 11th grades between the years 2000 and 2005 showed scores that were FLAT in Math and Science. So schools switched over to using SAT testing in 2006 for 11th graders. Between 2006 and 2009, the scores were FLAT OR DECLINING in Math and Writing.
So the question is: Since Maine is spending more money per student (than the national average) and the student/teacher ratio is smaller than it used to be - WHY are Maine students doing so poorly when the time comes (the 11th grade) to test what they are learning?
I'll be providing some of the answers (and more questions) in future postings. Stay tuned.
These students are our future (for our state and country) and it's our money that's paying for their education.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
MORE IMPORTANT EDUCATION NEWS
Today I'll be at the noon luncheon in Bangor presented by the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
The speaker will be Steve Bowen, the director of the Center for Education Excellence at The Maine Heritage Policy Center. Mr. Bowen will update several education reform issues being discussed in Maine and review a few topics that are in the news this week, including a new National Report Card from the US Chamber, and efforts by some in the state legislature to scuttle the "Local Control" rights of the school budget validation process.
His topic: "School Reform in Maine: The Issues That Matter"
Please note that last (blue) highlighted topic. Yesterday I heard a member of the Maine Legislature has introduced a piece of legislation that would eliminate OUR (meaning local voters/taxpayers) right to vote on the annual proposed school budget. You can be sure I will be listening intently to whatever information I can garner this noontime regarding this - and will be reporting it here later this afternoon.
If you're interested in attending the luncheon, I'm told there are usually extra seats set aside for people who haven't made advance reservation.
The details:
DATE:
November 12, 2009 (today) TIME: 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. LOCATION: Sea Dog Brewing Company 26 Front Street Bangor, Maine Price: $15.00 per person.
The speaker will be Steve Bowen, the director of the Center for Education Excellence at The Maine Heritage Policy Center. Mr. Bowen will update several education reform issues being discussed in Maine and review a few topics that are in the news this week, including a new National Report Card from the US Chamber, and efforts by some in the state legislature to scuttle the "Local Control" rights of the school budget validation process.
His topic: "School Reform in Maine: The Issues That Matter"
Please note that last (blue) highlighted topic. Yesterday I heard a member of the Maine Legislature has introduced a piece of legislation that would eliminate OUR (meaning local voters/taxpayers) right to vote on the annual proposed school budget. You can be sure I will be listening intently to whatever information I can garner this noontime regarding this - and will be reporting it here later this afternoon.
If you're interested in attending the luncheon, I'm told there are usually extra seats set aside for people who haven't made advance reservation.
The details:
DATE:
November 12, 2009 (today) TIME: 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. LOCATION: Sea Dog Brewing Company 26 Front Street Bangor, Maine Price: $15.00 per person.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
SCHOOL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY NIGHT
It was tight getting to Holbrook School by 6:30 Monday night. I hadn't gotten back to Eddington from the Maine Supreme Court in Portland until 6:05 and needed to make a quick stop at the house before continuing on to the school. (If you want to know how the hearing in Portland went, read the posting just prior to this one.)
The entire School Board was in attendance in the room just past the Library on the second floor at the school. They all sat around the oval table , as well as Interim Superintendent Ray Hart.
The "public" in attendance included Pam Dorr's husband; the SAD 63's Business Manager, Yvonne Mitchell; and this writer.
As soon as the meeting was officially called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence were observed, the Board adjourned to the Superintendent's Office for an Executive Session during which the attorney for the district was going to brief the entire board via phone regarding the hearing in Portland that had occurred that afternoon.
When the Board returned, approximately 30 minutes later, the discussion focused on FINALLY setting up a planning committee to form an RSU. Board Chairman Don Varnum, rep from Holden, stated he had been trying to form an RSU Planning group since September (!!!) - no comment. - He stated since last Tuesday's vote he had received communications from Orrington and Dedham that those school districts were now wiling to sit down with SAD 63 to work out a plan for an RSU.
Varnum stated SAD 63 representatives to the planning group would be: Kevin Mills to represent Holden, Therese Anderson to represent Eddington, and Chris Fickett to represent Clifton. Alternates would be: Varnum for Holden, Karen Clark for Eddington and ??? for Clifton. The problem for appointing an alternate for Clifton is that any alternate must be an existing member of the School Board and Clifton only has one representative. The last time, Karen Clark was designated Alternate for all three towns. Unfortunately, the alternate designation must be made by Board vote and Varnum didn't take care of that piece of business at Monday's meeting.
Therese Anderson tried to get a date for the first meeting set - time and place as well - since Varnum said he was sending out letters of notice to the Town Managers/Boards of Selectmen of Holden, Eddington and Clifton this week. Each of those towns must, by law, designate a selectman and citizen from their town to sit on the planning group. It only stood to reason that if the date of the first group meeting could be included in Varnum's letter, things could get going without delay. (The same information needs to be sent to the Town Managers, Boards of Selectmen, and School Board Chairmen of Orrington, Dedham, etc.) Varnum let Anderson's urging go totally unacknowledged. Anderson then said that the first meeting should be held No Later Than DECEMBER 10. She also pointed out that, because of the shortness of time, planning group meetings may need to be conducted twice a week from that point on considering the pending holiday schedule. All assigned school board planning group reps and alternates stated they would be available.
Varnum had already drafted up a Letter of Intent to send to the Commissioner of Education indicating Orrington and Dedham as potential "partners" which he showed to the Board.
The question was raised as to whether CSD 8 (Airline) should also be invited to participate in the discussion. Varnum reminded the Board that Airline had had a large "team" on the old planning group (when the discussion included consolidating with Brewer). (Writer's note: Apparently Airline had walked away from the previous RSU planning group, going over to check out consolidating with Ellsworth. Then they returned to the SAD 63/Brewer talks and were less than happy then, as well. This time there was not enough time for indecisive behavior.) Then Varnum suggested maybe Airline could be limited to sending just 1 selectmen and 1 citizen to the planning group. Therese Anderson pointed out that the law stated that each town was supposed to send 1 selectman and 1 citizen as well as the school board sending 1 representative from each town that the current board included. (For Airline, that meant 12 people should be included in the planning group.) Varnum clearly said "well, maybe we can just ignore the law." (!) Anderson was visibly upset by Varnum's remark. She said the law clearly stated how the planning group was to be comprised and that Varnum couldn't just limit Airline's representation in that group. Again, Varnum said he thought they could forget the law. Fortunately Anderson stuck to her guns.
This writer has a significant concern that if there is not a watchful eye as to how the planning group works and doesn't pay attention to how the new RSU is formed through its Articles of Incorporation, individuals like Varnum will try to circumvent not only the laws but the rights and best interests of ALL PARTIES. This writer strongly believes the Articles of Incorporation should be clear in requiring that the Chair of the new RSU Board rotate yearly amongst the towns represented by the Board (and the Vice Chair be from a different town, with the Vice Chair one year to succeed to the position of Chair the following year).
There was no mention of the town of Otis being included in the planning group until Karen Clark, rep from Eddington, specifically raised the issue. Mr. Hart wasn't even aware of the geographical location of the town of Otis until it was explained to him by Anderson. Varnum said Otis would be sent an invitational letter to the planning group meeting. Hart said having Otis involved would be good because that might be beneficial to those students living at the far end of Clifton - that they might be able to attend the school in Otis (because it would be a shorter transportation distance). (!)
A suggestion was made that a possible clause could be added in the initial RSU agreement that no schools would be closed for the first three years to allow for the Board of settle in and people to adjust to the consolidation.
Hart seemed to think that Ms. Mitchell had most of the consolidation budget numbers ready (which was not the impression of some of the Board members). One wonders if that means we'll have another year of multiple months where the Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) doesn't receive monthly financial reports.....
It also appears that during the BFC meeting that preceded the Special Meeting of the Board, Mr. Hart stated the following financial status: There will be a SHORTFALL of $140,000 in the current 2009-2010 (presumably from the state). In fiscal year there will be a $340,000 SHORTFALL in addition to the penalty (if SAD 63 does not consolidate) of $167,000. So, of course there is that much more pressure (aka threat) to consolidate. You notice taxpayers were not provided with this financial information BEFORE voters were voting for/against TABOR last week. Do you find this a bit interesting???
The question did come up re: the teachers contract negotiations. Hart stated the Orrington teachers are paid at a lower rate than the SAD 63 teachers and that the leveling out of all rates might ease up (for Orrington) over three years. In the meantime, he suggested the SAD 63 teachers might have to go a year without a contract. Anderson pointed out that the SHORTFALL situation was going to make contract negotiation "ugly" for everyone. Interesting that no one seems to thinks that, from the taxpayer's point of view, it's been ugly for some time. This writer pointed out (at the Public Hearing re: the school budget last year) we were all warned that there would be another $90,000,000.00 SHORTFALL for education in 2011 and SAD 63 needed to stop thinking each year could be more expensive that the year before. WIth the exception of Karen Clark from Eddington, none of the Board and no one from Central Office wanted to hear that and turned a deaf ear. (I didn't have a crystal ball then. Sure don't need one now.) Don't suppose anyone wanted to hear that the SAD 63 budget went up $800,000 in the last two years either since people seldom attend the Public Hearing and the few "no" votes that were cast were from Eddington and Clifton.
BOTTOM LINE RE: THIS RSU PLANNING GROUP: Towns need to get their teams ready - and start pushing Varnum for a date, time and place for the RSU planning meeting - for the first week in December. According to Hart, voters/taxpayers need to do their official and final VOTE by mid-February at the latest.
Between now and then this is what needs to happen:
1. Each town needs to assign its Selectman and citizen to the planning group (and alternates);
2. Each School Board needs to designate each town's Board representative (and alternate);
3. The Planning Group needs to formulate how the RSU would work (budget, central office staffing, each town's student population and designated school with related systems and services), etc.;
4. Prepare public presentations to be made in each town to explain how the RSU would work and related costs (projected town assessments and any contingencies agreed upon by the group - PLUS whatever has already been approved by the Commissioner of Education);
5. Make public presentations (which will require promotion and support from local Boards of Selectmen to encourage public attendance);
6. Group "tweeking" of any high negative issues raised at/from presentations which might prevent voter approval;
7. Town Voting (mid-February);
8. Candidate declarations for new RSU Board seats; (two weeks after voting)
9. New Candidate elections; (?? after declarations)
10. New RSU ready to go by July 1, 2010
There is certainly not very much time between now and mid-February - and there is one heck of a lot of work to do in steps 1-9.
Monday, November 9, 2009
SAD63 AT THE MAINE SUPREME COURT
It is rather impressive, being in a state's SUPREME COURT hearing. This was not like any other court room, and I've been in quite a few, including the United States Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court is above the norm. And the Maine Supreme Court is definitely larger than the U.S. District court room in the Bangor Federal Courthouse. By four or five times in size. The ceiling is probably thirty feet high - no fooling. And it is a "tray ceiling". If you're not into architecture (or an HGTV addict) a Tray Ceiling is a three-dimensional, upside-down tray with the inner section higher in the middle and then an outer frame set down a bit lower and then a third frame that is lower still.
The ceiling in the Maine Supreme Court room is, I believe - I didn't count - three large trays across in width and at least five deep (maybe more deep) in length. The inner most section of each tray is the lightest gray with each succeeding frame a shade darker. Between the trays are large gold leaf rosettes. The outer frames of each tray have gold leaf "X"s - maybe three across each side. The corners of the middle rim are gold leaf and the design on the outer rim is a carved "dental" design.
There are four very large, old fashioned, black ornate chandeliers - each of which contains at least four milk glass lights (one bulb was out) and several smaller bulbs. Each chandelier hangs by a very long black chain from the ceiling. Although four small, white fans have been installed in the ceiling near the front of the court room, near the area where the six Justices sit, the fans are not obvious and do not interfere with the original design.
As we entered the room from the rear left, I could easily observe the entire room which clearly shows its history. The far right wall contains windows high up on the wall, all of which were tilted open at the top. Below the windows were several dark (black) wooden benches where I soon realized young male and female attorneys were sitting in, observing the cases being heard during the course of the day. They didn't appear to be affiliated with any of the cases being heard while I was there or the case being heard immediately before the SAD63 case.
At the back of the room, where I would soon find myself sitting, were several old-fashioned black wooden benches, their seats and arm rests well worn over time - the black paint worn through to the natural wood. The style could easily indicate a time from that of President James Monroe at least. Directly in front of these benches, their backs pressed against the railing separating our section from the center of the room were several old, deep red, leather chairs with ornate knobs at the top of the back on each side. One can easily imagine them having been there for years and years. There is history in this room documented by the furnishing alone.
To the far left, next to the door where we had entered, sat a gentleman I believe to have been the court bailiff, perhaps although his "uniform" was a dark blue blazer with a crest on the pocket rather than a peace officer's uniform. Further along the side were benches similar to those on the opposite wall where the young attorneys sat; however these benches were vacant.
In the absolute center of the room were four relatively small desks with two chair each. Two desks were directly in front of the Justices bench, with a podium between, and the other two desks were located behind the first two. Imagine two rows of two desks each.
Directly in front of the podium - stretching from one side to the other - was a narrow area in which two young court clerks presided - separated from the attorneys by a deep railing that appeared to extend from floor to waist. Behind this area was THE RAISED BENCH AND SIX BLACK LEATHER CHAIRS. This was The Maine Supreme Court. It should be noted here that there was two doors behind the Justices chairs, one on either side on the center chair and a large ornate clock high on the wall above the center chair (which, by the way, has not been turned back to reflect daylight savings time).
When we first arrived, about 1:30pm, those of us there for the SAD63 oral arguments, we congregated outside Department 12, second floor, waiting for the case preceding SAD63's to conclude, not wanting to be disruptive. When that case concluded - the clue hearing "All Rise", we entered.
Those in attendance representing SAD63 were Bryon Densch, primary attorney, and Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Malloy from the firm of Skelton, Taintor & Abbot. It should be noted only Mr. Densch sat at the front right table and spoke on behalf for SAD 63. Also in attendance to listen to the arguments (and be of moral support, I suppose) were Mrs. Densch, School Board Chairman Don Varnum, School Board Member Karen Clark, and this writer.
Representing the Commission of Education was Sarah Forster, Assistant Attorney General from the Maine State Office of the Attorney General. She sat at the front desk to the left of the podium.
Representing former school superintendent Louise Regan was her legal counsel, Thad Zmistowski from the firm of Eaton Peabody who was accompanied by his loyal sidekick. The two of them sat at the desk in the second row, directly behind Ms. Forster.
Our case was scheduled to begin at 2:15pm. At 2:25 we heard, boldly proclaimed, "All Rise." And everyone in the courtroom stood as the two doors opened behind the Justices chairs and the six Maine Supreme Court Justices entered - three from one door and three from the other. There was no drum roll and yet, it was impressive in a way different than most courtrooms.
From left to right, they took their seats: Gordon, Miller, Alexander, Saufley, Levy, and Mead. Earlier when observing the ceiling and benches, I had looked at the oil portraits hanging high up on three of the walls. Nineteen men - and one woman. From their appearances and attire, it was easy to see some of them lived many years ago. The one woman appeared to be from a recent era. They were all attired in judicial garb. Chief Justices perhaps. And now I was looking at two women justices, one of whom was The Chief Justice. Considering my professional career and it's hurdles, I must admit to a moment of personal pleasure.
And so IT began.
The Chief Justice asked all three attorneys who planned to address the Court to come before the podium and give their names and the party they were representing (for the record). And each did. Then Mr. Densch addressed the Court first (because SAD 63 was the party who had filed the Appeal to be heard before the Court).
Then Ms. Forster spoke in response.
Then Mr. Zmistowski spoke as to Ms. Regan's position (as presented/developed by her counsel).
Then Mr. Densch was given the opportunity to provide a final rebuttal or argument to what had been presented by Mr. Forster and Mr. Zmistowski following Mr. Densch's initial presentation.
For the sake of brevity and syntax, this writer will simply provide an overview of the oral arguments presented, the key points raised by the Justices and what this writer believed to be the inclinations of the Justices by the time the Oral Arguments were concluded. Again, the following is only based on my observations.
At Issue: Title 20-A M.R.S. (Section) 1052(3) states that the Superintendent (Regan) may appeal a school board's decision (SAD 63's decision to terminate Regan's contract) to the Commissioner and that the commission SHALL hold a hearing as part of the appeal. [NOTE: the word "shall" is a mandate. If the law used the word "may", the law would mean there was an option as to whether or not the Commissioner would hold a hearing. That also means the Commissioner would have complete discretion as to whether or not to hold a hearing. When the law says shall, as in this law, the only discretion appears to be when the Commissioner is to hold the hearing, such as within a certain time frame following receipt from a request to do so. The operative word in the law here is SHALL.]
Title 20-A M.R.S (Section) 1052(3) states that the Superintendent may appeal a school board's decision to the Commissioner and the Commissioner shall hold a hearing as part of the appeal. [NOTE: Here is an example of the "option" where MAY is used and SHALL is used.
This became important today when the Chief Justice (CF) pointed out that the legislature wrote these laws and defined the responsibilities of the Commissioner. The CF pointed out that the law did allow some discretion to the Commissioner as to WHEN to hold the hearing, but IF a hearing was requested, the Commissioner was required to hold one.
Justices asked if Regan had asked the Commissioner for a hearing. It was acknowledged that Regan had, but then had requested that the Commissioner hold off on the hearing because Regan had filed for her case (with numerous and various issues) to be heard in Superior Court. It was then acknowledged that many of those issues had gone on to U.S. District Court which had thrown them out stating they did not constitute civil rights violations and sent them back to Superior Court - or to the Commissioner.
The Justices began to the crux of the matter when Justice Levy asked WHO WAS THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT? Mr. Densch stated SAD 63 was the aggrieved party because SAD 63 has been put off for 14 months by the Commissioner who has refused to simply hear the issue of whether or not the school board acted in compliance with Maine School Law when it took the actions it did, followed the procedures it did, and then, finding what it believed to be just cause - terminated Ms. Regan.
There was some discussion amongst the Justices that the current legislative law does not give the Commissioner the authority to do anything other than to determine the school board's action valid or invalid - meaning the Commissioner cannot award any damages to Ms. Regan should the Commissioner determine the board's actions were invalid. All the Commissioner could do is to order the board to give Ms. Regan back her position. So then the Justices asked how the district has been functioning since Ms. Regan was terminated. Mr. Densch noted that an Interim Superintendent was hired and things have gone forward. Justice Alexander pointed out to Ms. Forster that he presumed many superintendents might be appealing to the Commissioner what with this consolidation of schools. Ms. Forster didn't seem to think that would be the case.
Then Mr. Zmistowski spoke to the Justices. The MOST IMPORTANT point he made, as far as this writer can discern, was that Ms. Reagan doesn't intend to ask the Superior Court to determine whether or not her termination as superintendent was valid or not (!). Her case (and issues) in Superior Court is solely for redress of the other issues - at which point Mr. Zmistowski began to focus on the investigation the school board conducted as part of the required process to determine if there was just cause for termination (as least that's this writer's understanding of that issue).
Shortly after Mr. Zmistowski finished at the podium, Mr. Densch was offered the opportunity to provide any last remarks in rebuttal to Ms. Forster or Mr. Zmistowski. Mr. Densch, in the only time I have observed any hint of frustration by him in any court presentation, did state that if he heard another reference to the "investigation" he might just jump out the window (referencing the open ones in the court room). It was rather humorous considering how much frustration the man would be entitled to over so many reasons in this case and he has demonstrated none.
Within moments, there was that "All Rise". The Justices existed through those two doors through which they had originally entered. And we were done. At least for today. But I must say, I think the day was ours.
I really think the Justices "saw" the issues - that Regan (and her attorneys) have been playing the delay and stall game to avoid the direct path which would have brought this entire matter to conclusion years ago. And the Commissioner of Education has been avoiding her legal responsibilities as defined by law which has resulted in allowing a terminated employee to avoid a final determination. There were many questions asked by all of the Justices except Justices Miller and Mead who asked none. They appeared to be listening to everything and pondering what they were hearing. It also appeared that all of the questioning Justices had read the appeals materials previously submitted. The Chief Justice actively participated in the discussion and NONE of the Justices seemed particularly interested in the long answered Mr. Zmistowski tried to lay on them (since they repeatedly shut him off). My impression was that Ms. Forster wasn't making much of a case with the Justices either. They seemed to think that the Commissioner had a duty and jurisdiction defined by the Legislature and she shouldn't defer it to the courts.
At this point the writer thinks Ms. Regan and her counsel should be thinking they are walking on thin ice and are probably hoping for some kind of quick alternative settlement. The more I've looked into this case, the more convinced I am that while the board made some errors in the past by placing too much trust in an employee (which is what a superintendent is), the board took the appropriate action when it terminated Ms. Regan.
Some of the board members have paid a high personal price for doing the right thing for the people in our communities and the students in our school district. Others have been shown for being less than what the voters/taxpayers and parents have a right to expect of them. But in the end, I for one hope we do not end up providing any kind of settlement that can be misconstrued as the easy way or the cheaper ticket out of this case. It will only be seen as rewarding terribly bad behavior by people who betrayed the public's trust in the first place. And more might decide to take the same path for easy money as the taxpayers expense (as though we can afford it!).
Lastly, we have some heroes on our current school board and they are to be commended. As should be Bryon Densch and his associates. He is a quiet-spoken man but he is a mighty advocate for doing the right thing. We're lucky to have him on our side.
A Supreme Court is above the norm. And the Maine Supreme Court is definitely larger than the U.S. District court room in the Bangor Federal Courthouse. By four or five times in size. The ceiling is probably thirty feet high - no fooling. And it is a "tray ceiling". If you're not into architecture (or an HGTV addict) a Tray Ceiling is a three-dimensional, upside-down tray with the inner section higher in the middle and then an outer frame set down a bit lower and then a third frame that is lower still.
The ceiling in the Maine Supreme Court room is, I believe - I didn't count - three large trays across in width and at least five deep (maybe more deep) in length. The inner most section of each tray is the lightest gray with each succeeding frame a shade darker. Between the trays are large gold leaf rosettes. The outer frames of each tray have gold leaf "X"s - maybe three across each side. The corners of the middle rim are gold leaf and the design on the outer rim is a carved "dental" design.
There are four very large, old fashioned, black ornate chandeliers - each of which contains at least four milk glass lights (one bulb was out) and several smaller bulbs. Each chandelier hangs by a very long black chain from the ceiling. Although four small, white fans have been installed in the ceiling near the front of the court room, near the area where the six Justices sit, the fans are not obvious and do not interfere with the original design.
As we entered the room from the rear left, I could easily observe the entire room which clearly shows its history. The far right wall contains windows high up on the wall, all of which were tilted open at the top. Below the windows were several dark (black) wooden benches where I soon realized young male and female attorneys were sitting in, observing the cases being heard during the course of the day. They didn't appear to be affiliated with any of the cases being heard while I was there or the case being heard immediately before the SAD63 case.
At the back of the room, where I would soon find myself sitting, were several old-fashioned black wooden benches, their seats and arm rests well worn over time - the black paint worn through to the natural wood. The style could easily indicate a time from that of President James Monroe at least. Directly in front of these benches, their backs pressed against the railing separating our section from the center of the room were several old, deep red, leather chairs with ornate knobs at the top of the back on each side. One can easily imagine them having been there for years and years. There is history in this room documented by the furnishing alone.
To the far left, next to the door where we had entered, sat a gentleman I believe to have been the court bailiff, perhaps although his "uniform" was a dark blue blazer with a crest on the pocket rather than a peace officer's uniform. Further along the side were benches similar to those on the opposite wall where the young attorneys sat; however these benches were vacant.
In the absolute center of the room were four relatively small desks with two chair each. Two desks were directly in front of the Justices bench, with a podium between, and the other two desks were located behind the first two. Imagine two rows of two desks each.
Directly in front of the podium - stretching from one side to the other - was a narrow area in which two young court clerks presided - separated from the attorneys by a deep railing that appeared to extend from floor to waist. Behind this area was THE RAISED BENCH AND SIX BLACK LEATHER CHAIRS. This was The Maine Supreme Court. It should be noted here that there was two doors behind the Justices chairs, one on either side on the center chair and a large ornate clock high on the wall above the center chair (which, by the way, has not been turned back to reflect daylight savings time).
When we first arrived, about 1:30pm, those of us there for the SAD63 oral arguments, we congregated outside Department 12, second floor, waiting for the case preceding SAD63's to conclude, not wanting to be disruptive. When that case concluded - the clue hearing "All Rise", we entered.
Those in attendance representing SAD63 were Bryon Densch, primary attorney, and Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Malloy from the firm of Skelton, Taintor & Abbot. It should be noted only Mr. Densch sat at the front right table and spoke on behalf for SAD 63. Also in attendance to listen to the arguments (and be of moral support, I suppose) were Mrs. Densch, School Board Chairman Don Varnum, School Board Member Karen Clark, and this writer.
Representing the Commission of Education was Sarah Forster, Assistant Attorney General from the Maine State Office of the Attorney General. She sat at the front desk to the left of the podium.
Representing former school superintendent Louise Regan was her legal counsel, Thad Zmistowski from the firm of Eaton Peabody who was accompanied by his loyal sidekick. The two of them sat at the desk in the second row, directly behind Ms. Forster.
Our case was scheduled to begin at 2:15pm. At 2:25 we heard, boldly proclaimed, "All Rise." And everyone in the courtroom stood as the two doors opened behind the Justices chairs and the six Maine Supreme Court Justices entered - three from one door and three from the other. There was no drum roll and yet, it was impressive in a way different than most courtrooms.
From left to right, they took their seats: Gordon, Miller, Alexander, Saufley, Levy, and Mead. Earlier when observing the ceiling and benches, I had looked at the oil portraits hanging high up on three of the walls. Nineteen men - and one woman. From their appearances and attire, it was easy to see some of them lived many years ago. The one woman appeared to be from a recent era. They were all attired in judicial garb. Chief Justices perhaps. And now I was looking at two women justices, one of whom was The Chief Justice. Considering my professional career and it's hurdles, I must admit to a moment of personal pleasure.
And so IT began.
The Chief Justice asked all three attorneys who planned to address the Court to come before the podium and give their names and the party they were representing (for the record). And each did. Then Mr. Densch addressed the Court first (because SAD 63 was the party who had filed the Appeal to be heard before the Court).
Then Ms. Forster spoke in response.
Then Mr. Zmistowski spoke as to Ms. Regan's position (as presented/developed by her counsel).
Then Mr. Densch was given the opportunity to provide a final rebuttal or argument to what had been presented by Mr. Forster and Mr. Zmistowski following Mr. Densch's initial presentation.
For the sake of brevity and syntax, this writer will simply provide an overview of the oral arguments presented, the key points raised by the Justices and what this writer believed to be the inclinations of the Justices by the time the Oral Arguments were concluded. Again, the following is only based on my observations.
At Issue: Title 20-A M.R.S. (Section) 1052(3) states that the Superintendent (Regan) may appeal a school board's decision (SAD 63's decision to terminate Regan's contract) to the Commissioner and that the commission SHALL hold a hearing as part of the appeal. [NOTE: the word "shall" is a mandate. If the law used the word "may", the law would mean there was an option as to whether or not the Commissioner would hold a hearing. That also means the Commissioner would have complete discretion as to whether or not to hold a hearing. When the law says shall, as in this law, the only discretion appears to be when the Commissioner is to hold the hearing, such as within a certain time frame following receipt from a request to do so. The operative word in the law here is SHALL.]
Title 20-A M.R.S (Section) 1052(3) states that the Superintendent may appeal a school board's decision to the Commissioner and the Commissioner shall hold a hearing as part of the appeal. [NOTE: Here is an example of the "option" where MAY is used and SHALL is used.
This became important today when the Chief Justice (CF) pointed out that the legislature wrote these laws and defined the responsibilities of the Commissioner. The CF pointed out that the law did allow some discretion to the Commissioner as to WHEN to hold the hearing, but IF a hearing was requested, the Commissioner was required to hold one.
Justices asked if Regan had asked the Commissioner for a hearing. It was acknowledged that Regan had, but then had requested that the Commissioner hold off on the hearing because Regan had filed for her case (with numerous and various issues) to be heard in Superior Court. It was then acknowledged that many of those issues had gone on to U.S. District Court which had thrown them out stating they did not constitute civil rights violations and sent them back to Superior Court - or to the Commissioner.
The Justices began to the crux of the matter when Justice Levy asked WHO WAS THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT? Mr. Densch stated SAD 63 was the aggrieved party because SAD 63 has been put off for 14 months by the Commissioner who has refused to simply hear the issue of whether or not the school board acted in compliance with Maine School Law when it took the actions it did, followed the procedures it did, and then, finding what it believed to be just cause - terminated Ms. Regan.
There was some discussion amongst the Justices that the current legislative law does not give the Commissioner the authority to do anything other than to determine the school board's action valid or invalid - meaning the Commissioner cannot award any damages to Ms. Regan should the Commissioner determine the board's actions were invalid. All the Commissioner could do is to order the board to give Ms. Regan back her position. So then the Justices asked how the district has been functioning since Ms. Regan was terminated. Mr. Densch noted that an Interim Superintendent was hired and things have gone forward. Justice Alexander pointed out to Ms. Forster that he presumed many superintendents might be appealing to the Commissioner what with this consolidation of schools. Ms. Forster didn't seem to think that would be the case.
Then Mr. Zmistowski spoke to the Justices. The MOST IMPORTANT point he made, as far as this writer can discern, was that Ms. Reagan doesn't intend to ask the Superior Court to determine whether or not her termination as superintendent was valid or not (!). Her case (and issues) in Superior Court is solely for redress of the other issues - at which point Mr. Zmistowski began to focus on the investigation the school board conducted as part of the required process to determine if there was just cause for termination (as least that's this writer's understanding of that issue).
Shortly after Mr. Zmistowski finished at the podium, Mr. Densch was offered the opportunity to provide any last remarks in rebuttal to Ms. Forster or Mr. Zmistowski. Mr. Densch, in the only time I have observed any hint of frustration by him in any court presentation, did state that if he heard another reference to the "investigation" he might just jump out the window (referencing the open ones in the court room). It was rather humorous considering how much frustration the man would be entitled to over so many reasons in this case and he has demonstrated none.
Within moments, there was that "All Rise". The Justices existed through those two doors through which they had originally entered. And we were done. At least for today. But I must say, I think the day was ours.
I really think the Justices "saw" the issues - that Regan (and her attorneys) have been playing the delay and stall game to avoid the direct path which would have brought this entire matter to conclusion years ago. And the Commissioner of Education has been avoiding her legal responsibilities as defined by law which has resulted in allowing a terminated employee to avoid a final determination. There were many questions asked by all of the Justices except Justices Miller and Mead who asked none. They appeared to be listening to everything and pondering what they were hearing. It also appeared that all of the questioning Justices had read the appeals materials previously submitted. The Chief Justice actively participated in the discussion and NONE of the Justices seemed particularly interested in the long answered Mr. Zmistowski tried to lay on them (since they repeatedly shut him off). My impression was that Ms. Forster wasn't making much of a case with the Justices either. They seemed to think that the Commissioner had a duty and jurisdiction defined by the Legislature and she shouldn't defer it to the courts.
At this point the writer thinks Ms. Regan and her counsel should be thinking they are walking on thin ice and are probably hoping for some kind of quick alternative settlement. The more I've looked into this case, the more convinced I am that while the board made some errors in the past by placing too much trust in an employee (which is what a superintendent is), the board took the appropriate action when it terminated Ms. Regan.
Some of the board members have paid a high personal price for doing the right thing for the people in our communities and the students in our school district. Others have been shown for being less than what the voters/taxpayers and parents have a right to expect of them. But in the end, I for one hope we do not end up providing any kind of settlement that can be misconstrued as the easy way or the cheaper ticket out of this case. It will only be seen as rewarding terribly bad behavior by people who betrayed the public's trust in the first place. And more might decide to take the same path for easy money as the taxpayers expense (as though we can afford it!).
Lastly, we have some heroes on our current school board and they are to be commended. As should be Bryon Densch and his associates. He is a quiet-spoken man but he is a mighty advocate for doing the right thing. We're lucky to have him on our side.
SAD 63 AT MAINE SUPREME COURT TODAY
I'll be in Portland today to hear the Oral Arguments being presented to the Maine Supreme Court hoping to obtain a court order requiring Commissioner of Education Gendron to conduct the post-deprivation hearing regarding the termination of employment of former school superintendent Louise Regan.
The attorneys for SAD 63 and Ms. Regan will be presenting arguments on one side and an Assistant (state) Attorney General will be arguing on the other side - arguing on behalf of the Commissioner (that she should not be compelled to conduct the hearing). Our tax dollars at work (or not).
I'll be reporting on the hearing ASAP. I expect travel time will be tight because there is also a Budget and Finance Committee meeting at 6pm tonight also (at the Holbrook Middle School) immediately followed by an Executive Committee called by School Board Chairman Varnum to FINALLY decide upon appointing an RSU committee to get started - and a negotiating team to get started working on the teachers' contracts also needing attention.
Nothing like waiting until the last minute.
Since Tuesdays are my long day to begin with (my Writers' Group meets Tuesday mornings in Bangor) and I'm getting my snow tires put on, plus the final work done on the car needed for the inspection - the posting for all these School Board activities may be done in the wee hours tonight or tomorrow night. Please be patient and Stay Tuned.
The attorneys for SAD 63 and Ms. Regan will be presenting arguments on one side and an Assistant (state) Attorney General will be arguing on the other side - arguing on behalf of the Commissioner (that she should not be compelled to conduct the hearing). Our tax dollars at work (or not).
I'll be reporting on the hearing ASAP. I expect travel time will be tight because there is also a Budget and Finance Committee meeting at 6pm tonight also (at the Holbrook Middle School) immediately followed by an Executive Committee called by School Board Chairman Varnum to FINALLY decide upon appointing an RSU committee to get started - and a negotiating team to get started working on the teachers' contracts also needing attention.
Nothing like waiting until the last minute.
Since Tuesdays are my long day to begin with (my Writers' Group meets Tuesday mornings in Bangor) and I'm getting my snow tires put on, plus the final work done on the car needed for the inspection - the posting for all these School Board activities may be done in the wee hours tonight or tomorrow night. Please be patient and Stay Tuned.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
GOOD NEWS
The BEST part of Tuesday was seeing how many people were voting at the Town Office at 9:30am and then even later around 4:30pm. In fact, I called the Eddington Town Office to see if I could get an official count of how many people voted (absentees included) and I am so pleased to report there were 1091 votes cast in Eddington. And there were even some new people registering that day, but it is estimated no more than 100 (and even THAT IS GREAT!) - What FANTASTIC news.
Granted, I wasn't all that happy with the results of many of the issues - but that is secondary to the fact that so many people came out and voted. Now, if we could just get a bunch of them back to regularly attend Selectmen meetings and School Board meetings.
Speaking of the School Board... Since school consolidation was not repealed, it's no wonder that Chairman Don Varnum has called for an Executive Meeting next Monday night following the Budget and Finance Committee meeting to discuss what needs to be done to form an RSU planning committee. One would think so. All the months since last June have been lost (and the work that could have been done) when people both on the Board and from the public have been asking for a committee to be formed to work on a back-up plan in case consolidation wasn't repealed. Even if the people had only come from Eddington, Clifton and Holden we would have been further ahead than we are now (because we can NOT just use the old RSU plan that was drafted a year ago. There were too many problems with that plan - not just that it included Brewer or the overall cost.).
We'll see what Mr. Varnum and Mr. Hart have in mind now.
But I doubt the voters and taxpayers will just fall in line if the price is unacceptable regardless of the state's "penalty". Maybe the bill should just be sent to Chairman Varnum as the cost of failing to provide any leadership. Wonder how Orrington and Dedham feel now? Maybe they've decided to form their own RSU and leave SAD 63 out of any of their discussion. And what about Otis? Otis was the only town that made it a specific point to come to a SAD 63 School Board meeting and asked to join with SAD 63. It sure would be nice if some of the parents who voted Tuesday would start to attend School Board meetings to see just what goes on (and what doesn't).
*******
Come by the Five Seasons Gift shop at the Clewley Farm Restaurant tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday between 9am and 2pm. I'll be working in the shop. There are some great seasonal gifts (Fall and Christmas). And you can get a great breakfast while you're at it in the restaurant.
Granted, I wasn't all that happy with the results of many of the issues - but that is secondary to the fact that so many people came out and voted. Now, if we could just get a bunch of them back to regularly attend Selectmen meetings and School Board meetings.
Speaking of the School Board... Since school consolidation was not repealed, it's no wonder that Chairman Don Varnum has called for an Executive Meeting next Monday night following the Budget and Finance Committee meeting to discuss what needs to be done to form an RSU planning committee. One would think so. All the months since last June have been lost (and the work that could have been done) when people both on the Board and from the public have been asking for a committee to be formed to work on a back-up plan in case consolidation wasn't repealed. Even if the people had only come from Eddington, Clifton and Holden we would have been further ahead than we are now (because we can NOT just use the old RSU plan that was drafted a year ago. There were too many problems with that plan - not just that it included Brewer or the overall cost.).
We'll see what Mr. Varnum and Mr. Hart have in mind now.
But I doubt the voters and taxpayers will just fall in line if the price is unacceptable regardless of the state's "penalty". Maybe the bill should just be sent to Chairman Varnum as the cost of failing to provide any leadership. Wonder how Orrington and Dedham feel now? Maybe they've decided to form their own RSU and leave SAD 63 out of any of their discussion. And what about Otis? Otis was the only town that made it a specific point to come to a SAD 63 School Board meeting and asked to join with SAD 63. It sure would be nice if some of the parents who voted Tuesday would start to attend School Board meetings to see just what goes on (and what doesn't).
*******
Come by the Five Seasons Gift shop at the Clewley Farm Restaurant tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday between 9am and 2pm. I'll be working in the shop. There are some great seasonal gifts (Fall and Christmas). And you can get a great breakfast while you're at it in the restaurant.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
A "P.S." to Yesterday's Posting re: QUESTION 4
There is soooo much information out and about re: this question, and much of it is erroneous, but I feel some facts should be presented as examples WHY I believe passage of Question 4 will be beneficial for all taxpayers in Maine.
You may never have heard of the Government Facilities Authority (GFA) but it was created by the Maine Legislature in 1997 so that lawmakers could BORROW MONEY for government building projects without voter approval to borrow the money. In the same piece of legislation that created the GFA, the legislators borrowed $143 MILLION creating a public debt that the taxpayers never approved.*
During the 2000-2001 biennium, Maine taxpayers paid $7.2 MILLION in interest to service GFA debt. We will pay $39.4 MILLION during the current biennium, an increase in debt service spending of more than 440 percent - for debt we never approved. Is it any wonder the state government needs to continually increase taxes and fees to cover the cost of state government when they incur state debt the voters never approved in the first place. Approving Question 4 will stop this kind of activity and put the GFA out of business.*
On the other hand, in 2005, the Maine Legislature created a government oversight and accountability office called the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA). This office is non-partisan and works with the Legislature to provide government accountability.*
OPEGA has from its beginning pointed out areas of waste, inefficiency and poor management of funds. OPEGA's studies often led to a recommendation that some state program, commission or project be reduced or eliminated.*
So, in the summer of 2007, the 123rd legislature reduced the staffing by three key positions and funding of OPEGA by more than $300,000 and set up a legislative committee to review OPEGA to make sure OPEGA was effective and efficient.* Now isn't that something like sending in the fox to watch the chickens????? You don't suppose OPEGA upset some special interest groups by any chance do you?
Now, last but not least - a new television ad from the "No on Four" campaign - with the town of Hermon in the background. The message: That Town Meetings and local people are better able to run their local financial affairs and would lose the right to set their budget needs under TABOR because of some "format."
First of all, as far as the Town of Eddington is concerned, out of 1600 registered voters, there are less than 120 who show up at the Annual Town Meeting to actually vote on the Town's Budget and less than 50 who show up at either the Public Hearings for the Towns' proposed budget or the proposed school budget. There are probably less than 100 from Eddington who ever vote for the school budget. So nobody can tell me that the voters in Eddington didn't opt out of being active decision makers in the local budgetary process a long time ago, as depressing as that is.
AND, should Eddington voters ever want to become more involved in the process, as long as Eddington's Charter allows for the voters to submit a referendum or petition for a re-vote of the Town's Budget - or any portion of it, there are ample provisions under Question 4's proposed legislation that will allow for that. (Read yesterday's posting where I printed out the ENTIRE proposed legislation. One of the last sections identifies Municipalities which is where the issue is addressed.) BTW, after reading the entire proposed legislation, I didn't see anything about any format. There is a criteria based on inflation rate and population growth for any STATE increase. I saw nothing regarding local municipalities deciding for themselves how they wanted to spend their money.
Bottom Line: Vote YES on Question 4. It is the only way Maine will be able to get out of the debt state government has put us in to. Otherwise, we might just as well put this state up for sale because state government will tax us all in to bankruptcy.
* The information on GFA and OPEGA comes from The Piglet Book, researched and produced by the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
You may never have heard of the Government Facilities Authority (GFA) but it was created by the Maine Legislature in 1997 so that lawmakers could BORROW MONEY for government building projects without voter approval to borrow the money. In the same piece of legislation that created the GFA, the legislators borrowed $143 MILLION creating a public debt that the taxpayers never approved.*
During the 2000-2001 biennium, Maine taxpayers paid $7.2 MILLION in interest to service GFA debt. We will pay $39.4 MILLION during the current biennium, an increase in debt service spending of more than 440 percent - for debt we never approved. Is it any wonder the state government needs to continually increase taxes and fees to cover the cost of state government when they incur state debt the voters never approved in the first place. Approving Question 4 will stop this kind of activity and put the GFA out of business.*
On the other hand, in 2005, the Maine Legislature created a government oversight and accountability office called the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA). This office is non-partisan and works with the Legislature to provide government accountability.*
OPEGA has from its beginning pointed out areas of waste, inefficiency and poor management of funds. OPEGA's studies often led to a recommendation that some state program, commission or project be reduced or eliminated.*
So, in the summer of 2007, the 123rd legislature reduced the staffing by three key positions and funding of OPEGA by more than $300,000 and set up a legislative committee to review OPEGA to make sure OPEGA was effective and efficient.* Now isn't that something like sending in the fox to watch the chickens????? You don't suppose OPEGA upset some special interest groups by any chance do you?
Now, last but not least - a new television ad from the "No on Four" campaign - with the town of Hermon in the background. The message: That Town Meetings and local people are better able to run their local financial affairs and would lose the right to set their budget needs under TABOR because of some "format."
First of all, as far as the Town of Eddington is concerned, out of 1600 registered voters, there are less than 120 who show up at the Annual Town Meeting to actually vote on the Town's Budget and less than 50 who show up at either the Public Hearings for the Towns' proposed budget or the proposed school budget. There are probably less than 100 from Eddington who ever vote for the school budget. So nobody can tell me that the voters in Eddington didn't opt out of being active decision makers in the local budgetary process a long time ago, as depressing as that is.
AND, should Eddington voters ever want to become more involved in the process, as long as Eddington's Charter allows for the voters to submit a referendum or petition for a re-vote of the Town's Budget - or any portion of it, there are ample provisions under Question 4's proposed legislation that will allow for that. (Read yesterday's posting where I printed out the ENTIRE proposed legislation. One of the last sections identifies Municipalities which is where the issue is addressed.) BTW, after reading the entire proposed legislation, I didn't see anything about any format. There is a criteria based on inflation rate and population growth for any STATE increase. I saw nothing regarding local municipalities deciding for themselves how they wanted to spend their money.
Bottom Line: Vote YES on Question 4. It is the only way Maine will be able to get out of the debt state government has put us in to. Otherwise, we might just as well put this state up for sale because state government will tax us all in to bankruptcy.
* The information on GFA and OPEGA comes from The Piglet Book, researched and produced by the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
