Not much snowfall during the past few days, thankfully. Heating oil truck has been and filled the tank, the tree is up and well decorated, gifts have been wrapped and mailed (yikes! the cost per box was approximately one-quarter the cost of the contents) and delivered. The Annual Open House was filled with cheer, good friends and family, and food.
In the midst of all this, we experienced a death in the family here in the Bangor area. Somehow this one was not as traumatic as the one a year and a half ago. But as we all gathered, some of us having just been together two weeks earlier, we are once again thankful for family and the message this season brings.
May you all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. The postings and blog will be on vacation until after the first of the year. My wishes for you all is that the coming year will be filled with peace and joy and better times.
Prayers are requested, as always, for the members of the military and their families who work and sacrifice for the democracy and freedom we are so privileged to have in this country.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
HOW TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT
Had a call from a resident after he read the last posting. He wanted to know how he could obtain a copy of the referenced Audit Report so he could compare the report to the questions the "group" submitted to the School Board (listed in the last posting).
All School Board Audit Reports are public documents, as are any audit reports for any towns in the state, or any government or public entity. And any citizen or taxpayer has the right to request and be provided a copy of those audit reports. Likewise, any citizen or taxpayer has the legal right under the Freedom of Information Act to question any information in said document and to receive, within 30 days, answers to those questions.
When the Question document was first submitted to the SAD 63 Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) Chairman, the document was almost immediately given over to the SAD 63 Business Manager to provide the answers (as though no one on the BFC would know or be able to answer the questions???) and an expressed concern that it might be "confidential information" to provide an answer as to how much the district owed, at that time, to the attorney representing the Board in the lawsuit re: the terminated former superintendent. It was "the groups' opinion" that whatever was owned was not confidential. It may have been confidential as to how much of that bill was going to be paid by the insurance company, but not how much was owed.
Anyway, to answer anyone who might be wondering how to obtain any audit report, simply contact the SAD 63 Central Office and request a copy of the report. It is suggested that the request be in writing with a date on the request. That way, if there is an unreasonable delay in providing the report, the requester can document the time frame when contacting the Maine Attorney General which would certainly result in a timely response from someone.
The requester might also want to let the BDN know what is happening. Periodically they seem interested in the goings on of the SAD 63 Board and the Central Office. As to the 2008-2009 audit - that was reportedly begun sometime in November...for a fiscal year that ended June 30. Ask any other business, or school district for that matter, what the time lag would be between the end of their fiscal year and the beginning of their audit process. Usually it's no more than two months - one of the issues raised in the "Question Document."
All School Board Audit Reports are public documents, as are any audit reports for any towns in the state, or any government or public entity. And any citizen or taxpayer has the right to request and be provided a copy of those audit reports. Likewise, any citizen or taxpayer has the legal right under the Freedom of Information Act to question any information in said document and to receive, within 30 days, answers to those questions.
When the Question document was first submitted to the SAD 63 Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) Chairman, the document was almost immediately given over to the SAD 63 Business Manager to provide the answers (as though no one on the BFC would know or be able to answer the questions???) and an expressed concern that it might be "confidential information" to provide an answer as to how much the district owed, at that time, to the attorney representing the Board in the lawsuit re: the terminated former superintendent. It was "the groups' opinion" that whatever was owned was not confidential. It may have been confidential as to how much of that bill was going to be paid by the insurance company, but not how much was owed.
Anyway, to answer anyone who might be wondering how to obtain any audit report, simply contact the SAD 63 Central Office and request a copy of the report. It is suggested that the request be in writing with a date on the request. That way, if there is an unreasonable delay in providing the report, the requester can document the time frame when contacting the Maine Attorney General which would certainly result in a timely response from someone.
The requester might also want to let the BDN know what is happening. Periodically they seem interested in the goings on of the SAD 63 Board and the Central Office. As to the 2008-2009 audit - that was reportedly begun sometime in November...for a fiscal year that ended June 30. Ask any other business, or school district for that matter, what the time lag would be between the end of their fiscal year and the beginning of their audit process. Usually it's no more than two months - one of the issues raised in the "Question Document."
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The following was delivered as a document to Mario Teisl, Chairman of the SAD 63 Budget & Finance Committee (BFC), at its October committee meeting. Under both the Board's policies and the Right of Information Act, the answers should have been provided within thirty (30) days. However, as the document states, the group requested the answers by the (full) Board's November meeting which took place November 30, 2009.
In Mr. Teisl's November BFC report, dated Saturday, 10/7/09 (when the meeting actually took place Tuesday, 10/9/09) to the Board, he stated, "The first order of business was to reflect on the residents' questions about the 2008 audit report that was given to the Committee at the last meeting. No member of the group was present at the current meeting so we decided to move onto (sic) other business."
It should be noted that three members of the group were present at the November 30th meeting and no offer was made by Mr. Teisl to provide the answers. It should also be noted that on 10/9/09, two members of the group arrived shortly after the 23 minute BFC meeting ended (and before the special Executive Session began). Those two members were Karen Clark, Board member, and this writer, a member of "the group." We arrived as soon as we could get there from the Portland hearing before the Maine Supreme Court. No attempt was made by Mr. Teisl, or any other member of the BFC, to provide any response document. Nor was there any mention by Mr. Teisl at that time that any responses to the document was available, even though he was clearly aware of both Karen's and my arrival.
A caller/reporter from Holden yesterday advised that the Maine Attorney General might be interested in this matter because, in spite of Mr. Hart's opinion, the LAW authorizes the public to have access to ALL public documents, such as school district audit reports, and REQUIRES answers to any questions the public (no matter how large or small a group) may ask re: such audits.
Therefore, for the Public's information, the following questions and "suggestions" were delivered to the SAD 63 Board, via the BFC as was the appropriate procedure. Perhaps members of any RPCs might want to take note as well.
*****
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
2007-2008 SAD63 AUDIT
A group of citizens from Eddington and Clifton collectively reviewed the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit. The individuals included Eddington Town Manager, Russell Smith; Vice Chairman of the Clifton Board of Selectmen (with full support of that Board), Penny Peasley; Eddington School Board Representative, Karen Clark; Eddington resident Rusty Gagnon (retired multi-million dollar government facility business manager); and Eddington resident Charles L. Wellman, Administrator and CEO of the Eastport Health Center. All of these individuals have experience with government funding and accountability, accounting practices and audit procedures. At the time of the review in question, the 2006-2007 Audit had not been reviewed for comparison. The questions below were developed by the group following the 2007-2008 review.
General Observation:
The overall lack of footnotes to explain significant changes in specific categories hinders understanding of various areas of the report, i.e., the increase of Current liabilities in the amount of $514,783 from 2007 to 2008 (as noted on pg. 8 under the heading of Net Assets for the Period Ending June 30, 2008).
QUESTIONS:
Process Issues:
When was the financial information given to the Auditors? (A specific date please.)
When was the Audit Report completed?
How much is the District paying Brantner, Thibodeau & Associates to conduct the audit and prepare the Audit Report?
How much did the District pay the previous Auditors for the same services?
When will the 2008-2009 Audit Report be started?
(NOTE: The Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2009. Professional standards would expect the
Year-end books to be closed by August 31, 2009. A standard audit procedure where there
are no outstanding problems, especially for an entity the size of this district, should take
no more than four months. Using that measurement, SAD63’s Audit Report for Fiscal
Year 2008-2009 should be completed by January 2010 in order for the School Board’s
Budget and Finance Committee to use that information when preparing the 2010-2011
Budget, and for any school consolidation negotiations.)
If the Auditors project a need for more than four months to complete the audit
process, Why?
QUESTIONS:
Information contained in the Audit Report:
Why aren’t totals spent in 2008 for specific categories the same when reported in different sections of the report?
[NOTE: Compare data reported on pgs 10 and pg 13 – categories: Plant operations and
Maintenance, Transportation, School lunch program, and Contingency and other. The
sums of these categories differ from one page to the other in the amount of $80,314.
Pg. 10 notes (under the first . listing Revenues) federal sources accounted for $425,495 of total revue. When reviewing Assets from Governmental Funds (listed on pg. 14), the group could not identify that amount of money. If placed in the General Fund, it should be so noted and it isn’t. It is not listed in either “Special Revenue Grants” or “Other Governmental Funds”, so where are those funds and how are they accounted for?
Pg. 10 notes (under the first . listing Revenues) shows the same amount of funding from local assessment ($3,599,324) but there is an inconsistency in the amount shown for state sources. Please explain the $5,211,042 difference between the “state sources” referenced on Pg. 10 totaling $5,489,543 and the State Subsidy referenced on Pg. 13 in the amount of $5,211,042 (a difference in the amount of $278,501).
Pgs. 18-19 list a Private Purpose trust for scholarship and other purposes which earned $216 in interest over the year but shows no disbursement during the year. Why were there no disbursements from the trust?
[NOTE: The group did not think this trust should be used for any student outside the
three towns should consolidation take place.]
Under the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (pg. 20) it was noted “…the District has elected not to apply Financial Accounting Standards Board Statements and Interpretations, Accounting Principles Board Opinions, and Accounting Research Bulletins of the Committee of Accounting Procedure issued after November 30, 1989.” It had been noted that the District does not utilize the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). (The explanation offered is that under GAAP the District would show the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund.) Since the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund is not a cost to the District’s taxpayers, Why are these basic accounting standards not utilized by SAD63 management?
Related to 5. above: In the Auditor’s cover letter, they write about information on pages 6-11 and 32-33 that …“are not a required part of the basic financials, but yet they are required by GAAP.” Is this limited to the inclusion of the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund? If this is not the only limitation, please explain what else GAAP requires.
Related to 5. above: Again, on page 4 of the Report, in the last paragraph, the 2nd sentence states, “We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management.” Please explain what inquiries were made by the auditors and why. Please explain what explanations and instructions were given to the auditors?
Pg. 32 & 33 – Expenditures show a budgeted amount for System administration (not School administration) in the amount of $324,730, but an Actual Amount spent in the amount of $400,981. Why was there an increase in the amount of $76,251 in a year when the Superintendent was terminated?
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
1. It was noted in 2008-2009 SAD63 Budget and Finance committee meetings, as well as the 2009 May Public Hearing to discuss the proposed 2009-2010 budget, that the District’s business office needs to make the necessary changes in its formatting of various financial documents (monthly financial statements, proposed annual budgets, and any other financial reports and documents) to one consistent format. This will enable all parties to more accurately and clearly compare data for any given area from one reporting period to another. These changes need to be effective immediately.
2. Monthly financial statements should report data for funds received and spent on both month-to-date and year-to-date bases, as well as showing actual totals spent and comparative data for the current month (compared to the same month in the previous year). The monthly financial reports should also include itemized deductions of state funds, deductions from previous year’s overstated budget, donations, etc. An additional benefit would be a column showing the number of students (per school) on a comparative year basis (the current year to the previous year).
3. In 2009/2010, we expect the District Business Office to provide monthly financial reports to the School Board’s Budget and Finance Committee. The reports should also be provided to the Town Managers of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. This distribution should be done by the last business day of the month following the preceding month. This allows sufficient time for the District’s business office to close its month-end books and to produce/distribute the reports.
4. While the Audit Report made only brief mention of the pending lawsuit between the District and the previous Superintendent, it would be beneficial if the Chairman of the School Board would provide monthly status reports of the case (and current costs not being paid by the District’s insurance company) to the Town Managers of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. As stated by the Interim Superintendent, at some point the three Boards of Selectmen are going to have to call special town meetings to address the need for voters to approve necessary funding for any outstanding debt.
5. It was mentioned several times throughout the Audit Report that the District opts not to follow GAAP accounting principles. The Auditors felt it important to point out those areas (see page 11 under General Fund Highlights, the 1st and 2nd indented paragraph; see page 20, the 2nd paragraph; and see page 23, the 1st paragraph).
If the District hopes to consolidate with other schools, it is important our financial records are able to blend in with those record-keeping systems of the other (unknown) schools. It is also possible that it might cost this District less for auditing services if the District managed its books in a manner considered “standard.”
We appreciate the time required to address our concerns; however, we believe answers should be provided by the November School Board meeting. Thank you.
*****
The very first question re: when the financial data was given to the auditors relates to the fact that the Audit Report was not completed until July 2009 (and reportedly not begun until the Spring of 2009). Standard practices would have had the audit report completed and delivered before May 2009. This would indicate a problem either in the SAD 63 business office or with the auditors. In light of the five months in the first part of 2009 when there were no monthly financial statements provided by the business manager to the School Board, one wonders if there is a relationship between that and the lateness of the audit procedures. Regardless of whatever work may or may not have been done by the SAD 63 business office for the failed RSU, the business manager was paid over $70,000 to do the work of SAD 63 (not to mention the significant bonus she received at the end of the year for the alleged cost savings she was "responsible for.")
In Mr. Teisl's November BFC report, dated Saturday, 10/7/09 (when the meeting actually took place Tuesday, 10/9/09) to the Board, he stated, "The first order of business was to reflect on the residents' questions about the 2008 audit report that was given to the Committee at the last meeting. No member of the group was present at the current meeting so we decided to move onto (sic) other business."
It should be noted that three members of the group were present at the November 30th meeting and no offer was made by Mr. Teisl to provide the answers. It should also be noted that on 10/9/09, two members of the group arrived shortly after the 23 minute BFC meeting ended (and before the special Executive Session began). Those two members were Karen Clark, Board member, and this writer, a member of "the group." We arrived as soon as we could get there from the Portland hearing before the Maine Supreme Court. No attempt was made by Mr. Teisl, or any other member of the BFC, to provide any response document. Nor was there any mention by Mr. Teisl at that time that any responses to the document was available, even though he was clearly aware of both Karen's and my arrival.
A caller/reporter from Holden yesterday advised that the Maine Attorney General might be interested in this matter because, in spite of Mr. Hart's opinion, the LAW authorizes the public to have access to ALL public documents, such as school district audit reports, and REQUIRES answers to any questions the public (no matter how large or small a group) may ask re: such audits.
Therefore, for the Public's information, the following questions and "suggestions" were delivered to the SAD 63 Board, via the BFC as was the appropriate procedure. Perhaps members of any RPCs might want to take note as well.
*****
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
2007-2008 SAD63 AUDIT
A group of citizens from Eddington and Clifton collectively reviewed the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit. The individuals included Eddington Town Manager, Russell Smith; Vice Chairman of the Clifton Board of Selectmen (with full support of that Board), Penny Peasley; Eddington School Board Representative, Karen Clark; Eddington resident Rusty Gagnon (retired multi-million dollar government facility business manager); and Eddington resident Charles L. Wellman, Administrator and CEO of the Eastport Health Center. All of these individuals have experience with government funding and accountability, accounting practices and audit procedures. At the time of the review in question, the 2006-2007 Audit had not been reviewed for comparison. The questions below were developed by the group following the 2007-2008 review.
General Observation:
The overall lack of footnotes to explain significant changes in specific categories hinders understanding of various areas of the report, i.e., the increase of Current liabilities in the amount of $514,783 from 2007 to 2008 (as noted on pg. 8 under the heading of Net Assets for the Period Ending June 30, 2008).
QUESTIONS:
Process Issues:
When was the financial information given to the Auditors? (A specific date please.)
When was the Audit Report completed?
How much is the District paying Brantner, Thibodeau & Associates to conduct the audit and prepare the Audit Report?
How much did the District pay the previous Auditors for the same services?
When will the 2008-2009 Audit Report be started?
(NOTE: The Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2009. Professional standards would expect the
Year-end books to be closed by August 31, 2009. A standard audit procedure where there
are no outstanding problems, especially for an entity the size of this district, should take
no more than four months. Using that measurement, SAD63’s Audit Report for Fiscal
Year 2008-2009 should be completed by January 2010 in order for the School Board’s
Budget and Finance Committee to use that information when preparing the 2010-2011
Budget, and for any school consolidation negotiations.)
If the Auditors project a need for more than four months to complete the audit
process, Why?
QUESTIONS:
Information contained in the Audit Report:
Why aren’t totals spent in 2008 for specific categories the same when reported in different sections of the report?
[NOTE: Compare data reported on pgs 10 and pg 13 – categories: Plant operations and
Maintenance, Transportation, School lunch program, and Contingency and other. The
sums of these categories differ from one page to the other in the amount of $80,314.
Pg. 10 notes (under the first . listing Revenues) federal sources accounted for $425,495 of total revue. When reviewing Assets from Governmental Funds (listed on pg. 14), the group could not identify that amount of money. If placed in the General Fund, it should be so noted and it isn’t. It is not listed in either “Special Revenue Grants” or “Other Governmental Funds”, so where are those funds and how are they accounted for?
Pg. 10 notes (under the first . listing Revenues) shows the same amount of funding from local assessment ($3,599,324) but there is an inconsistency in the amount shown for state sources. Please explain the $5,211,042 difference between the “state sources” referenced on Pg. 10 totaling $5,489,543 and the State Subsidy referenced on Pg. 13 in the amount of $5,211,042 (a difference in the amount of $278,501).
Pgs. 18-19 list a Private Purpose trust for scholarship and other purposes which earned $216 in interest over the year but shows no disbursement during the year. Why were there no disbursements from the trust?
[NOTE: The group did not think this trust should be used for any student outside the
three towns should consolidation take place.]
Under the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (pg. 20) it was noted “…the District has elected not to apply Financial Accounting Standards Board Statements and Interpretations, Accounting Principles Board Opinions, and Accounting Research Bulletins of the Committee of Accounting Procedure issued after November 30, 1989.” It had been noted that the District does not utilize the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). (The explanation offered is that under GAAP the District would show the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund.) Since the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund is not a cost to the District’s taxpayers, Why are these basic accounting standards not utilized by SAD63 management?
Related to 5. above: In the Auditor’s cover letter, they write about information on pages 6-11 and 32-33 that …“are not a required part of the basic financials, but yet they are required by GAAP.” Is this limited to the inclusion of the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund? If this is not the only limitation, please explain what else GAAP requires.
Related to 5. above: Again, on page 4 of the Report, in the last paragraph, the 2nd sentence states, “We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management.” Please explain what inquiries were made by the auditors and why. Please explain what explanations and instructions were given to the auditors?
Pg. 32 & 33 – Expenditures show a budgeted amount for System administration (not School administration) in the amount of $324,730, but an Actual Amount spent in the amount of $400,981. Why was there an increase in the amount of $76,251 in a year when the Superintendent was terminated?
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
1. It was noted in 2008-2009 SAD63 Budget and Finance committee meetings, as well as the 2009 May Public Hearing to discuss the proposed 2009-2010 budget, that the District’s business office needs to make the necessary changes in its formatting of various financial documents (monthly financial statements, proposed annual budgets, and any other financial reports and documents) to one consistent format. This will enable all parties to more accurately and clearly compare data for any given area from one reporting period to another. These changes need to be effective immediately.
2. Monthly financial statements should report data for funds received and spent on both month-to-date and year-to-date bases, as well as showing actual totals spent and comparative data for the current month (compared to the same month in the previous year). The monthly financial reports should also include itemized deductions of state funds, deductions from previous year’s overstated budget, donations, etc. An additional benefit would be a column showing the number of students (per school) on a comparative year basis (the current year to the previous year).
3. In 2009/2010, we expect the District Business Office to provide monthly financial reports to the School Board’s Budget and Finance Committee. The reports should also be provided to the Town Managers of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. This distribution should be done by the last business day of the month following the preceding month. This allows sufficient time for the District’s business office to close its month-end books and to produce/distribute the reports.
4. While the Audit Report made only brief mention of the pending lawsuit between the District and the previous Superintendent, it would be beneficial if the Chairman of the School Board would provide monthly status reports of the case (and current costs not being paid by the District’s insurance company) to the Town Managers of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. As stated by the Interim Superintendent, at some point the three Boards of Selectmen are going to have to call special town meetings to address the need for voters to approve necessary funding for any outstanding debt.
5. It was mentioned several times throughout the Audit Report that the District opts not to follow GAAP accounting principles. The Auditors felt it important to point out those areas (see page 11 under General Fund Highlights, the 1st and 2nd indented paragraph; see page 20, the 2nd paragraph; and see page 23, the 1st paragraph).
If the District hopes to consolidate with other schools, it is important our financial records are able to blend in with those record-keeping systems of the other (unknown) schools. It is also possible that it might cost this District less for auditing services if the District managed its books in a manner considered “standard.”
We appreciate the time required to address our concerns; however, we believe answers should be provided by the November School Board meeting. Thank you.
*****
The very first question re: when the financial data was given to the auditors relates to the fact that the Audit Report was not completed until July 2009 (and reportedly not begun until the Spring of 2009). Standard practices would have had the audit report completed and delivered before May 2009. This would indicate a problem either in the SAD 63 business office or with the auditors. In light of the five months in the first part of 2009 when there were no monthly financial statements provided by the business manager to the School Board, one wonders if there is a relationship between that and the lateness of the audit procedures. Regardless of whatever work may or may not have been done by the SAD 63 business office for the failed RSU, the business manager was paid over $70,000 to do the work of SAD 63 (not to mention the significant bonus she received at the end of the year for the alleged cost savings she was "responsible for.")
Friday, December 18, 2009
SAD 63 SETTLEMENT - PER BANGOR DAILY NEWS
SAD 63 agrees to pay fired superintendent $300,000
By Nok-Noi RickerBDN Staff
HOLDEN, Maine — The SAD 63 board, during an emergency meeting Wednesday night, agreed to pay fired Superintendent Louise Regan $300,000 to drop the multicount lawsuit she filed against the district and five of its members.
The board also agreed to rescind her termination, and “will accept Louise Regan’s resignation” effective on the day the completed settlement agreement is signed.
“Under the terms of the agreement, no party admits any liability or fault,” says a statement from the board, endorsed during the emergency meeting. “The District will pay to Ms. Regan the sum of $300,000 in settlement of all claims in the lawsuit.”
Residents within the SAD 63 communities of Holden, Eddington and Clifton will pay $125,000 of the tab with the district’s insurance company — Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. — picking up the remainder, the statement says. (Translation: Taxpayers from Eddington, Clifton and Holden will be required to pick up the tab for $125,000.)
The statement does not mention who will pay lawyers’ fees, which have climbed over the $500,000 mark in the last two years between the district and Regan.
“Without this settlement the parties anticipated many more months of costly litigation before the case would ultimately be resolved,” the district’s statement says. “It is in the best interest of all concerned to bring it to a conclusion.”
The former SAD 63 superintendent sued the district and five board members who in October 2007 allowed one member to read a “letter of concern” regarding her actions surrounding previously recorded meeting tapes.
It is the actions that night, a subsequent investigation of Regan’s conduct and her firing in July 2008 that spurred the legal matters.
During the school board’s Oct. 22, 2007, meeting, then board member Dion Seymour, with the approval of a majority of the eight directors, read a statement that basically said Regan had told lies about him to three other board members concerning the tapes. He said those lies “maligned” him and his integrity.
At the end of the regular meeting, the board held a 1½-hour closed-door session, and afterward Seymour rescinded his letter of concern and the board issued an apology for its actions that evening.
The five board members who voted to allow Seymour to read his letter — Seymour, Karen Clark, Therese Anderson, Linda Goodrich and Robert Kiah — are the ones named in Regan’s lawsuit. Three of the five who were sued are no longer board members. Goodrich resigned from the board citing stress from the lawsuit, Seymour lost his seat during the June 2008 local election, and Kiah decided not to run when his term expired in June 2009.
Regan claimed defamation and violation of her rights related to the October 2007 school board meeting, the investigation into her conduct and her firing.
According to the district statement obtained Thursday, “This settlement eliminates the need for further proceedings in the Penobscot County Superior Court or before the Maine Commissioner of Education.”
Commissioner Susan Gendron had scheduled a hearing for Dec. 21 and 22 in Augusta to determine whether there was cause for Regan’s termination.
“This settlement enables all parties to put this behind them, to stop incurring litigation costs, and to go forward with their own lives and responsibilities in public education,” the SAD 63 statement reads. “This dispute has been a severe hardship on all involved.”
Five board members in attendance at Wednesday’s emergency meeting unanimously endorsed the statement and the eight-item settlement outline, deputy chairwoman Karen Clark said Wednesday, declining to make a statement. Voting on the settlement were Clark, Theresa Anderson, Sylvia Ellis, Kevin Mills and Mario Teisel.
Chairman Don Varnum and board members Pamela Dorr and Chris Fickett were unable to attend the emergency meeting.
Regan’s attorney, Thad Zmistowski, said Thursday, “It looks like things are getting worked out.
“It’s my understanding that the parties have come to a agreement in principle, and we’re working out the details,” he said. “Beyond that, it’s not appropriate to comment at this time.”
The agreement between Regan and SAD 63 brings “this long and unfortunate dispute to a close,” the district said in its statement.
nricker@bangordailynews.net
NOTE: There are two errors in this article. Kevin Mills was NOT in attendance - AND - Chris Fickett WAS in attendance.
ALSO: Don Varnum is tending his resignation from the Board effective immediately citing health issues. AND - no meeting of any RPC committee has been called. Maybe it's time for someone to show some leadership instead of waiting for Orrington to "approve" anything. Who put Orrington "in charge" - or maybe that community is the only one assumed to have some leadership (aka "backbone.") Certainly doesn't appear to be any on the SAD 63 Board.
By Nok-Noi RickerBDN Staff
HOLDEN, Maine — The SAD 63 board, during an emergency meeting Wednesday night, agreed to pay fired Superintendent Louise Regan $300,000 to drop the multicount lawsuit she filed against the district and five of its members.
The board also agreed to rescind her termination, and “will accept Louise Regan’s resignation” effective on the day the completed settlement agreement is signed.
“Under the terms of the agreement, no party admits any liability or fault,” says a statement from the board, endorsed during the emergency meeting. “The District will pay to Ms. Regan the sum of $300,000 in settlement of all claims in the lawsuit.”
Residents within the SAD 63 communities of Holden, Eddington and Clifton will pay $125,000 of the tab with the district’s insurance company — Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. — picking up the remainder, the statement says. (Translation: Taxpayers from Eddington, Clifton and Holden will be required to pick up the tab for $125,000.)
The statement does not mention who will pay lawyers’ fees, which have climbed over the $500,000 mark in the last two years between the district and Regan.
“Without this settlement the parties anticipated many more months of costly litigation before the case would ultimately be resolved,” the district’s statement says. “It is in the best interest of all concerned to bring it to a conclusion.”
The former SAD 63 superintendent sued the district and five board members who in October 2007 allowed one member to read a “letter of concern” regarding her actions surrounding previously recorded meeting tapes.
It is the actions that night, a subsequent investigation of Regan’s conduct and her firing in July 2008 that spurred the legal matters.
During the school board’s Oct. 22, 2007, meeting, then board member Dion Seymour, with the approval of a majority of the eight directors, read a statement that basically said Regan had told lies about him to three other board members concerning the tapes. He said those lies “maligned” him and his integrity.
At the end of the regular meeting, the board held a 1½-hour closed-door session, and afterward Seymour rescinded his letter of concern and the board issued an apology for its actions that evening.
The five board members who voted to allow Seymour to read his letter — Seymour, Karen Clark, Therese Anderson, Linda Goodrich and Robert Kiah — are the ones named in Regan’s lawsuit. Three of the five who were sued are no longer board members. Goodrich resigned from the board citing stress from the lawsuit, Seymour lost his seat during the June 2008 local election, and Kiah decided not to run when his term expired in June 2009.
Regan claimed defamation and violation of her rights related to the October 2007 school board meeting, the investigation into her conduct and her firing.
According to the district statement obtained Thursday, “This settlement eliminates the need for further proceedings in the Penobscot County Superior Court or before the Maine Commissioner of Education.”
Commissioner Susan Gendron had scheduled a hearing for Dec. 21 and 22 in Augusta to determine whether there was cause for Regan’s termination.
“This settlement enables all parties to put this behind them, to stop incurring litigation costs, and to go forward with their own lives and responsibilities in public education,” the SAD 63 statement reads. “This dispute has been a severe hardship on all involved.”
Five board members in attendance at Wednesday’s emergency meeting unanimously endorsed the statement and the eight-item settlement outline, deputy chairwoman Karen Clark said Wednesday, declining to make a statement. Voting on the settlement were Clark, Theresa Anderson, Sylvia Ellis, Kevin Mills and Mario Teisel.
Chairman Don Varnum and board members Pamela Dorr and Chris Fickett were unable to attend the emergency meeting.
Regan’s attorney, Thad Zmistowski, said Thursday, “It looks like things are getting worked out.
“It’s my understanding that the parties have come to a agreement in principle, and we’re working out the details,” he said. “Beyond that, it’s not appropriate to comment at this time.”
The agreement between Regan and SAD 63 brings “this long and unfortunate dispute to a close,” the district said in its statement.
nricker@bangordailynews.net
NOTE: There are two errors in this article. Kevin Mills was NOT in attendance - AND - Chris Fickett WAS in attendance.
ALSO: Don Varnum is tending his resignation from the Board effective immediately citing health issues. AND - no meeting of any RPC committee has been called. Maybe it's time for someone to show some leadership instead of waiting for Orrington to "approve" anything. Who put Orrington "in charge" - or maybe that community is the only one assumed to have some leadership (aka "backbone.") Certainly doesn't appear to be any on the SAD 63 Board.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO YESTERDAY'S POSTING
I have no idea what, if any, result came from last night's School Board meeting. But my thoughts about what is the probable major influencing factor can be found in the comments posted to yesterday's posting.
I did receive a phone call today asking what the questions/issues were re: the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit report. I'll post the entire document here tomorrow.
I did receive a phone call today asking what the questions/issues were re: the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit report. I'll post the entire document here tomorrow.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
ACTIVITIES IN THE HOOD - AND EARLY RESOLUTIONS
Last Night (Tuesday) was Eddington's Selectmen's meeting and Special Town Meeting. Didn't attend but expect the grant application was approved. This writer attended the Public Hearing on December 1 which provided the necessary information and the grant and conditions seemed reasonable. We'll see if the promises made by the Board re: the March Town meeting and subsequent notifications are made - or if anyone notices/cares.
There is going to be a special meeting of the SAD 63 School Board this week, I believe. Therese Anderson, Vice Chair seems to be the Acting Chair these days because of illness having been experienced by Chairman Varnum.
Seems the telephone hearing with the Commissioner has been put on hold perhaps because of this special Board meeting. One has to wonder if the powers behind the throne want to push through some kind of Settlement via the Mediation process that was started weeks ago (instead of the Commissioner's Hearing? which will boggle the mind if that's the case).
WHY would the taxpayers want to go the Settlement Route (not that we count) - except that a Settlement means WE will be stuck with some kind of bill on top of the expected increased cost of educating the children since the state is planning to decrease it's financial share anyway. If the Commissioner were to rule in favor of the Board, that would take the very heart out of former superintendent Regan's case. So one can logically see why Regan and her legal counsel might be pushing very hard for a settlement at this time. But the Board certainly shouldn't be. Of course, the taxpayers won't get any say in the matter. What else in new? We'll just get stuck with the bill - and maybe with having to rehire Regan in some capacity since that is what Interim Superintendent Hart freely suggested during the teachers workshops a few weeks ago - saying she might very well be coming back as the superintendent or in some other capacity....! (Was that past of what she and her legal counsel said they wanted as part of the settlement in the mediation session?) Maybe she just needs more years to obtain her state retirement and it's unlikely with all that's been written in the local newspapers she'd be able to obtain employment outside of SAD 63 (or the whatever RSU the area will become). Just makes sense if anyone wants to think the matter through. Not that there's a lot of that going on around here lately. What a boondoggle this whole mess has turned out to be. And should we look at who might be behind the orchestration? Don't expect his residence is in Eddington, Clifton or Holden.
Interesting thought: What if the voters, who will have to approve any loan or financial arrangement associated with the settlement, vote NO. Does anyone suppose the settlement will have to be therefore paid out of the personal checkbooks and savings accounts of the members of the School Board? Now that would be true justice!
With all of the success the Board's legal counsel has had to date, (and if the Board members would actually READ the documents that have been produced...) it would be irresponsible to go into a costly settlement or rehire instead of having the Commissioner hear the case. Of course, getting the Board members to read the documents - all of them - is far too much to expect for at least half of them. Why they ran for their positions is another question - but someone else will have to ask that one in more depth than I care to go in to.
BUT - since not one single new person has bothered to attend the School Board meetings since this blog has started tracking and reporting the "behavior" of the SAD 63 Board, and not one single parent from Eddington or Clifton (and only one from Holden) is the least bit concerned, and only the Clifton Selectmen and the town manager and one Selectman at a time from Eddington shows up (and only after a fire is lit and then doused and then when "ordered") - it is apparent that monitoring any governing body that raises the taxes and feels no accountability for how those taxes are spent - is a waste of my time and energy.
So I'm not going to do it any more. I, too, can sit at home in my easy chair, read a book or watch TV and be comfortable and not give a tinker's toot. It is apparent that there isn't a single capable manager or leader on the School Board. In all the Budget & Finance Committee meetings I've attended, I've not heard a single question raised as to why monies were spent or why they were spent in one area and not another (other than in Holden which seems to get carte blanche) even when it has been known since October that the state was not going to meet it's fiscal portion. The Board doesn't "manage" anything and there is more that goes on behind the scenes than is transparent.
The answers to the questions that were submitted the first of October re: the 2007-2008 Audit were supposedly prepared but have not been given to the group of five who prepared and submitted them, even though three of the individuals were at the November 30 Board meeting. Mr. Hart's position is that no group of citizens have any right to ask questions of information in the audit, even though the audit is a public document and the money spent to fund the school district comes from the public. Apparently the public/taxpayers are simply to be considered an Open Checkbook at the mercy of the School Board and the various Board of Selectmen.
And every citizen in these three towns apparently feels the same because no one attends any meetings or asks any questions or expects any accountability of these Boards. Welcome to small town Maine democracy. And who cares? Not me any longer.
There is going to be a special meeting of the SAD 63 School Board this week, I believe. Therese Anderson, Vice Chair seems to be the Acting Chair these days because of illness having been experienced by Chairman Varnum.
Seems the telephone hearing with the Commissioner has been put on hold perhaps because of this special Board meeting. One has to wonder if the powers behind the throne want to push through some kind of Settlement via the Mediation process that was started weeks ago (instead of the Commissioner's Hearing? which will boggle the mind if that's the case).
WHY would the taxpayers want to go the Settlement Route (not that we count) - except that a Settlement means WE will be stuck with some kind of bill on top of the expected increased cost of educating the children since the state is planning to decrease it's financial share anyway. If the Commissioner were to rule in favor of the Board, that would take the very heart out of former superintendent Regan's case. So one can logically see why Regan and her legal counsel might be pushing very hard for a settlement at this time. But the Board certainly shouldn't be. Of course, the taxpayers won't get any say in the matter. What else in new? We'll just get stuck with the bill - and maybe with having to rehire Regan in some capacity since that is what Interim Superintendent Hart freely suggested during the teachers workshops a few weeks ago - saying she might very well be coming back as the superintendent or in some other capacity....! (Was that past of what she and her legal counsel said they wanted as part of the settlement in the mediation session?) Maybe she just needs more years to obtain her state retirement and it's unlikely with all that's been written in the local newspapers she'd be able to obtain employment outside of SAD 63 (or the whatever RSU the area will become). Just makes sense if anyone wants to think the matter through. Not that there's a lot of that going on around here lately. What a boondoggle this whole mess has turned out to be. And should we look at who might be behind the orchestration? Don't expect his residence is in Eddington, Clifton or Holden.
Interesting thought: What if the voters, who will have to approve any loan or financial arrangement associated with the settlement, vote NO. Does anyone suppose the settlement will have to be therefore paid out of the personal checkbooks and savings accounts of the members of the School Board? Now that would be true justice!
With all of the success the Board's legal counsel has had to date, (and if the Board members would actually READ the documents that have been produced...) it would be irresponsible to go into a costly settlement or rehire instead of having the Commissioner hear the case. Of course, getting the Board members to read the documents - all of them - is far too much to expect for at least half of them. Why they ran for their positions is another question - but someone else will have to ask that one in more depth than I care to go in to.
BUT - since not one single new person has bothered to attend the School Board meetings since this blog has started tracking and reporting the "behavior" of the SAD 63 Board, and not one single parent from Eddington or Clifton (and only one from Holden) is the least bit concerned, and only the Clifton Selectmen and the town manager and one Selectman at a time from Eddington shows up (and only after a fire is lit and then doused and then when "ordered") - it is apparent that monitoring any governing body that raises the taxes and feels no accountability for how those taxes are spent - is a waste of my time and energy.
So I'm not going to do it any more. I, too, can sit at home in my easy chair, read a book or watch TV and be comfortable and not give a tinker's toot. It is apparent that there isn't a single capable manager or leader on the School Board. In all the Budget & Finance Committee meetings I've attended, I've not heard a single question raised as to why monies were spent or why they were spent in one area and not another (other than in Holden which seems to get carte blanche) even when it has been known since October that the state was not going to meet it's fiscal portion. The Board doesn't "manage" anything and there is more that goes on behind the scenes than is transparent.
The answers to the questions that were submitted the first of October re: the 2007-2008 Audit were supposedly prepared but have not been given to the group of five who prepared and submitted them, even though three of the individuals were at the November 30 Board meeting. Mr. Hart's position is that no group of citizens have any right to ask questions of information in the audit, even though the audit is a public document and the money spent to fund the school district comes from the public. Apparently the public/taxpayers are simply to be considered an Open Checkbook at the mercy of the School Board and the various Board of Selectmen.
And every citizen in these three towns apparently feels the same because no one attends any meetings or asks any questions or expects any accountability of these Boards. Welcome to small town Maine democracy. And who cares? Not me any longer.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
THIS WEEK'S BOARD MEETINGS - SURPRISES GALORE
Life is filled with surprises – many unexpected, some disappointing, some more beneficial than at first glance. So went the proceedings of the two Board meetings this week.
The SAD 63 School Board meeting Monday night had a few.
It seems lots of telephone conversations took place after the Nov. 24th joint meeting of the Clifton and Eddington Boards of Selectmen where a quorum of both Boards voted unanimously to oppose the transfer of parcel #2 at the Holden School to the Town of Holden. At the end of that meeting, Eddington’s Town Manager was directed to (1) write up the letter affirming the vote for the appropriate signatures, (2) fax it to Clifton for signing and return and then (3) hand deliver the signed letter to the school district’s central office on Monday November 30th.
The direction then was to have the letter read into the official record at the SAD 63 Board meeting Monday night when representatives from both towns’ Board of Selectmen would be in attendance to affirm the contents of the letter. BUT, Surprise #1 – by Monday the two Boards had changed their collective minds and spoke in support of the transfer at the school board meeting. And so the school board voted accordingly and the deed was done.
Reportedly the Release Deed, when it is written, has been instructed to carry language that the land shall (or maybe the language will just say “will”, which does not carry the same legally mandatory weight as the word “shall) stay in some form of a Public Trust, and that the land will (shall?) be transferred back to the school should there be a need of the school for the land, such as for an expansion of the septic system.
The "Back story" to this 180 degree change of events seems related to at least two (maybe more) after-the-fact “influences”: (A) Therese Anderson, rep from Eddington, announced to one of the Selectmen in advance of the school board meting she would be voting for the transfer of the land at the Board meeting. (Therese did not attend the joint meeting of the Selectmen although she was informed of the meeting. She reportedly had a work conflict.)
During my conversation with the party who forewarned me of the Boards change of position, I heard the oft-used justification that the school board is an elected (and “independent”) body. The inference to that kind of thinking is that it does not need to listen to or be concerned with the positions or opinions of the townspeople (or elected governing bodies) from towns which comprise the school district. Of course I have heard directly on at least three different occasions from Interim Superintendent Hart and School Chairman Varnum that "the land belongs to the school board and we can do with it as we choose."
Readers should remember that it was Anderson who stepped in and stopped Varnum from trying to slide through a vote on transferring parcel #2 at the October board meeting. Perhaps there has been some “restructuring” of Anderson’s independence in the past month.
The (B) “influence”: At least one of the Selectmen still seemed to think that sections of the old RSU (that was voted down intact) still apply. Therefore the old section that stated …should a school be selected for closure, all property attached to that school (and by inference – the land) could be sold by the new RSU Board. Applying that language to the Holden School defies logic, as has been explained with numerous reasons in previous postings. But individuals from Holden (Selectmen and members of the school board) have repeatedly used it to try to push this land deal for the last nine months. Apparently they were successful. And with Holden's four votes on the School Board and Anderson's vote - the deed would have been done regardless. So, it appears it is better to be on the side that is going to win rather than the side that is right.
However, (just for reference) until the New Regional Planning Committee (RPC) actually convenes and reaffirms any sections of the Old RSU documents, the sections do not currently apply and are not legally binding at this time.
Surprise #2: Varnum reported his meeting November 17th with a representative from the Commissioner of Education’s office, the School Board chairs from Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8, and Otis. He indicated that SAD 63 would be submitting a Letter of Intent to the Commissioner requesting the Commissioner’s approval of the formation of an RSU that would include Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8 and SAD 63.
At that point, a school board member asked about the town of Otis being included in the RSU, pointing out that the Otis Interim Superintendent was in the audience. Varnum then acknowledged the Otis Superintendent and asked if he would like to address the group. Whereupon, the Otis Superintendent stated Otis would also like to be included as a partner in the RSU to be formed with SAD 63 and the other aforementioned potential partners. (This is a turn-around from as recent as last Sunday night when this writer had a long conversation with the Chair of the Otis School Board.) As a result of this announcement, Varnum stated SAD 63 would file TWO Letters of Intent – one including Otis as a potential partner, and one excluding Otis. After two town votes, it is obvious Otis does not want to join the RSU with Ellsworth and their Interim Superintendent is working to find a solution that will respect the wishes and interest of that towns constituents.
Members of the Clifton Selectmen stood and officially requested Karen Clark, rep from Eddington, be appointed as the Clifton school board alternative to the RPC (and Team Clifton RPC). It was approved.
And those were the major points (and surprises) from the School Board meeting Monday night.
*****
Eddington Public Hearing and Selectmen Meeting Tuesday night:
The first 45 minutes of the meeting were devoted to the Public Hearing to discuss the application by Fire Chief Ellis for a federal SAFER Grant via Homeland Security. This grant, if awarded, would fund a full-time firefighter position Monday-Friday (40 hours a week) for both salary and benefits for two years. The one major local requirement is that Eddington would have to commit to maintain and pay the position for one year following the completion of the grant. This is estimated to cost Eddington taxpayers approximately $47,546 at that time.
While there were only five members from the public in attendance for the Public Hearing (in addition to the full Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager, Chief Ellis, and Firefight Russell), there were numerous questions regarding the benefits to the town regarding insurance ratings, budgeting in advance, and how the townspeople could be assured of the specific line item identification on the cost of the position for any subsequent years.
It is expected that much of this information will be repeated on Tuesday, December 15 (promptly at 6pm) when this matter will be presented at a Special Town Meeting for a vote. Chief Ellis is preparing the grant proposal at this time because the deadline for the grant application is December 18. The results of the December 15th vote will determine whether or not he can mail the application.
Following the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Board of Selectmen proceeded to a regular Board meeting which had a very short agenda…
The “surprise” came under Unfinished Business. First the Board dealt with The Forestry Lane Road Approval which involved approving the road being constructed, in part by the University of Maine once certain work was completed. Of note – two members of the board abstained from voting on the matter for reasons that would have constituted a Conflict of Interest. The other three voted unanimously for Approval.
And then….it seemed the Board “needed to rescind the unanimous vote” it had taken at the November 24th meeting at which Ralph Russell was named the representative of the Board and this writer was named the town’s citizen to the RPC. The reason? Because the Selectmen had never terminated the town’s RPC for the old RSU (remember the one voted on nearly a year ago and turned down) – and therefore, that was the RPC of standing - because the Board had never "terminated" the RPC after the RSU was voted down. (By any chance do you suppose this, too, was a topic in those numerous telephone conversations between November 25 and November 30? And the Board didn’t know about this "rule" before November 24? And who made this rule? Oh well, c’est la.)
The motion was made and seconded and passed unanimously without discussion, comment or courtesy. Therefore Team Eddington is now: Charles Baker, Eddington Selectman, and Ralph Russell, citizen representative. Surprise #3 for the week.
Was there any advance warning of any of these “changes?” Just one. Surprise #1, following a comment I heard in the Clifton Town Office Monday afternoon when I was told that someone (I don’t know who) had remarked, “Eddington and Clifton need to stay out of SAD 63 business.”
Could that have been a threat or was someone feeling only Holden was behaving “properly?” Of course, Holden has been the primary beneficiary of the taxpayers’ “donations” in recent years.
While I didn’t follow up the remark (who said it and when) at that time, I did make one phone call and as a result knew, in advance, of Surprise #1.
However, on reflection, I think all three “surprises” were good ones – beneficial to all, and certainly to this writer and maybe to the readers of this blog in days to come.
And now, there are Christmas gifts to finish making and wrapping and mailing. And a house to decorate, and cards to address and mail, etc., etc., etc. The rain is ending and the sun is coming out. Perhaps in more ways than one. Enjoy.
The SAD 63 School Board meeting Monday night had a few.
It seems lots of telephone conversations took place after the Nov. 24th joint meeting of the Clifton and Eddington Boards of Selectmen where a quorum of both Boards voted unanimously to oppose the transfer of parcel #2 at the Holden School to the Town of Holden. At the end of that meeting, Eddington’s Town Manager was directed to (1) write up the letter affirming the vote for the appropriate signatures, (2) fax it to Clifton for signing and return and then (3) hand deliver the signed letter to the school district’s central office on Monday November 30th.
The direction then was to have the letter read into the official record at the SAD 63 Board meeting Monday night when representatives from both towns’ Board of Selectmen would be in attendance to affirm the contents of the letter. BUT, Surprise #1 – by Monday the two Boards had changed their collective minds and spoke in support of the transfer at the school board meeting. And so the school board voted accordingly and the deed was done.
Reportedly the Release Deed, when it is written, has been instructed to carry language that the land shall (or maybe the language will just say “will”, which does not carry the same legally mandatory weight as the word “shall) stay in some form of a Public Trust, and that the land will (shall?) be transferred back to the school should there be a need of the school for the land, such as for an expansion of the septic system.
The "Back story" to this 180 degree change of events seems related to at least two (maybe more) after-the-fact “influences”: (A) Therese Anderson, rep from Eddington, announced to one of the Selectmen in advance of the school board meting she would be voting for the transfer of the land at the Board meeting. (Therese did not attend the joint meeting of the Selectmen although she was informed of the meeting. She reportedly had a work conflict.)
During my conversation with the party who forewarned me of the Boards change of position, I heard the oft-used justification that the school board is an elected (and “independent”) body. The inference to that kind of thinking is that it does not need to listen to or be concerned with the positions or opinions of the townspeople (or elected governing bodies) from towns which comprise the school district. Of course I have heard directly on at least three different occasions from Interim Superintendent Hart and School Chairman Varnum that "the land belongs to the school board and we can do with it as we choose."
Readers should remember that it was Anderson who stepped in and stopped Varnum from trying to slide through a vote on transferring parcel #2 at the October board meeting. Perhaps there has been some “restructuring” of Anderson’s independence in the past month.
The (B) “influence”: At least one of the Selectmen still seemed to think that sections of the old RSU (that was voted down intact) still apply. Therefore the old section that stated …should a school be selected for closure, all property attached to that school (and by inference – the land) could be sold by the new RSU Board. Applying that language to the Holden School defies logic, as has been explained with numerous reasons in previous postings. But individuals from Holden (Selectmen and members of the school board) have repeatedly used it to try to push this land deal for the last nine months. Apparently they were successful. And with Holden's four votes on the School Board and Anderson's vote - the deed would have been done regardless. So, it appears it is better to be on the side that is going to win rather than the side that is right.
However, (just for reference) until the New Regional Planning Committee (RPC) actually convenes and reaffirms any sections of the Old RSU documents, the sections do not currently apply and are not legally binding at this time.
Surprise #2: Varnum reported his meeting November 17th with a representative from the Commissioner of Education’s office, the School Board chairs from Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8, and Otis. He indicated that SAD 63 would be submitting a Letter of Intent to the Commissioner requesting the Commissioner’s approval of the formation of an RSU that would include Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8 and SAD 63.
At that point, a school board member asked about the town of Otis being included in the RSU, pointing out that the Otis Interim Superintendent was in the audience. Varnum then acknowledged the Otis Superintendent and asked if he would like to address the group. Whereupon, the Otis Superintendent stated Otis would also like to be included as a partner in the RSU to be formed with SAD 63 and the other aforementioned potential partners. (This is a turn-around from as recent as last Sunday night when this writer had a long conversation with the Chair of the Otis School Board.) As a result of this announcement, Varnum stated SAD 63 would file TWO Letters of Intent – one including Otis as a potential partner, and one excluding Otis. After two town votes, it is obvious Otis does not want to join the RSU with Ellsworth and their Interim Superintendent is working to find a solution that will respect the wishes and interest of that towns constituents.
Members of the Clifton Selectmen stood and officially requested Karen Clark, rep from Eddington, be appointed as the Clifton school board alternative to the RPC (and Team Clifton RPC). It was approved.
And those were the major points (and surprises) from the School Board meeting Monday night.
*****
Eddington Public Hearing and Selectmen Meeting Tuesday night:
The first 45 minutes of the meeting were devoted to the Public Hearing to discuss the application by Fire Chief Ellis for a federal SAFER Grant via Homeland Security. This grant, if awarded, would fund a full-time firefighter position Monday-Friday (40 hours a week) for both salary and benefits for two years. The one major local requirement is that Eddington would have to commit to maintain and pay the position for one year following the completion of the grant. This is estimated to cost Eddington taxpayers approximately $47,546 at that time.
While there were only five members from the public in attendance for the Public Hearing (in addition to the full Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager, Chief Ellis, and Firefight Russell), there were numerous questions regarding the benefits to the town regarding insurance ratings, budgeting in advance, and how the townspeople could be assured of the specific line item identification on the cost of the position for any subsequent years.
It is expected that much of this information will be repeated on Tuesday, December 15 (promptly at 6pm) when this matter will be presented at a Special Town Meeting for a vote. Chief Ellis is preparing the grant proposal at this time because the deadline for the grant application is December 18. The results of the December 15th vote will determine whether or not he can mail the application.
Following the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Board of Selectmen proceeded to a regular Board meeting which had a very short agenda…
The “surprise” came under Unfinished Business. First the Board dealt with The Forestry Lane Road Approval which involved approving the road being constructed, in part by the University of Maine once certain work was completed. Of note – two members of the board abstained from voting on the matter for reasons that would have constituted a Conflict of Interest. The other three voted unanimously for Approval.
And then….it seemed the Board “needed to rescind the unanimous vote” it had taken at the November 24th meeting at which Ralph Russell was named the representative of the Board and this writer was named the town’s citizen to the RPC. The reason? Because the Selectmen had never terminated the town’s RPC for the old RSU (remember the one voted on nearly a year ago and turned down) – and therefore, that was the RPC of standing - because the Board had never "terminated" the RPC after the RSU was voted down. (By any chance do you suppose this, too, was a topic in those numerous telephone conversations between November 25 and November 30? And the Board didn’t know about this "rule" before November 24? And who made this rule? Oh well, c’est la.)
The motion was made and seconded and passed unanimously without discussion, comment or courtesy. Therefore Team Eddington is now: Charles Baker, Eddington Selectman, and Ralph Russell, citizen representative. Surprise #3 for the week.
Was there any advance warning of any of these “changes?” Just one. Surprise #1, following a comment I heard in the Clifton Town Office Monday afternoon when I was told that someone (I don’t know who) had remarked, “Eddington and Clifton need to stay out of SAD 63 business.”
Could that have been a threat or was someone feeling only Holden was behaving “properly?” Of course, Holden has been the primary beneficiary of the taxpayers’ “donations” in recent years.
While I didn’t follow up the remark (who said it and when) at that time, I did make one phone call and as a result knew, in advance, of Surprise #1.
However, on reflection, I think all three “surprises” were good ones – beneficial to all, and certainly to this writer and maybe to the readers of this blog in days to come.
And now, there are Christmas gifts to finish making and wrapping and mailing. And a house to decorate, and cards to address and mail, etc., etc., etc. The rain is ending and the sun is coming out. Perhaps in more ways than one. Enjoy.
Monday, November 30, 2009
THIS WEEK'S IMPORTANT MEETINGS
Tonight is School Board meeting - Holbrook School @ 6:30.
Items on the agenda will include:
Items on the agenda will include:
- the decision from the combined Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton re: parcel #2 at the Holden School re: transference to the Town of Holden.
- the Chairman's report re: a meeting he attended November 17th with the Chairs from the School Boards from Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8, and Otis re: joining SAD 63 in forming an RSU - and various question that were addressed to the Commissioner's representative who attended the meeting (including a discussion regarding eliminating the citizen representative member from each town's team on the RPC). (This should be interesting since the Eddington and Clifton Boards of Selectmen have already appointed their citizen representative...)
- the state's fiscal deficit and it's projected impact on SAD 63 state subsidy this year and next.
Tomorrow, Tuesday - December 1 - will be Eddington Board of Selectmen's Meeting and a Public Hearing @ 6pm
The subject for the Public Hearing will be in accordance with the amendment to Article 11 passed at last March's Town Meeting...regarding the application for a rather significant grant for a firefighter position which will require the town's obligation for a "long-term commitment" - a third year's funding for salary and benefits of the position. The estimated amount for this obligation was thought by the Fire Chief to be $50,000.
The explanation of the grant and the terms of the obligation will be the subject of the Public Hearing at the Town Office Tuesday Night. The Special Town Meeting to vote on this matter is scheduled for December 15 at 6pm.
This will be the second such event this year in accordance with Article 11. The attendance at the first event (the voting - Town Meeting) was 9, in addition to members of the Board and those individuals required to be in attendance. If more people do not attend this Special Town Meeting, there will be plenty of reason to cancel such requirements for future years. Such Special Town Meetings do carry additional costs (printing of notices and posting, electricity, etc.) Even though 25 people voted to pass the amendment, there haven't been anywhere close to that number or even half of the same people showing up to vote. Therefore, one has to wonder why they were so in favor of the amendment if they were not going to follow through.
PART IV - PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MAINE
Between 2003 and 2009, 8th grade students took the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) tests in Math and Reading. They also took the U.S. Department of Education (D.O.E.) National Assessment of Educational Progress tests (NAEP) in those same subjects.
The MEA test was to determine the percentage of students who "Meet or Exceeds Standards..."
The NAEP test was to determine the percentage of student "At or Above Proficient..."
Look at How Maine compared to National Standards:
MEA: in Math NAEP: in Math
2005 - 28% 30% (Maine did better on the NAEP, but not great overall at only 30%)
2007 - 51% 35% (Maine students lost 16% points using the national exam)
2009 - 53% 35% (Maine students lost 18% points using the national exam)
MEA: in Reading NAEP: in Reading
2003 - 45% 2003 - 37% (Maine lost 8% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)
2005 - 56% 2005 - 38% (Maine lost 18% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)
2007 - 65% 2007 - 37% (Maine lost 27% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)
(Source: Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007)
If you read these comparative scores, it means that the MEA tests "dummy down" the standards for students in Maine as compared to the NAEP tests. Even using the lowered MEA tests, almost half of Maine 8th grade students in public schools were not "meetings or exceeding Maine state standards" in Math as recently as 2009.
Using the national standards, only slightly more than one-third of Maine's 8th graders were considered "at or proficient" standards in reading in any one of the three testing years. It should make Maine parents of 8th graders wonder if they can trust how well their student/children are learning in Maine's public schools when there is such disparity between the scoring of MEA and NAEP learning tests.
Even the 2009 U.S. D.O.E. reported that Maine appears to be lowering its proficiency standards to make it seem as though our schools are doing better than they are.
According to Education Week, October 29, 2009, a federal study finds "State standards for what constitutes 'proficient' performance on 8th grade mathematics exams dropped in 16 states between 2005 and 2007. The proficiency bar was raised over the same period in four other states." Maine was one of the 16 states where proficient performance dropped. The four states where the bar was raised were Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
In the 2009 report entitled, "Diplomas Count, Broader Horizons," Maine was noted as having a high school graduation rate of 76.3%; it ranks 13th overall in the country. The state ranks 25th in the nation for the rate of white students graduating, and 30th for rate gains since 1996. However,
Maine has NO HIGH SCHOOL EXIT EXAM (whereas 24 other states do). What does this mean?
It means that all a student has to do to receive a high school diploma is show up enough hours - and get passed from one grade to another and that's enough. He/she doesn't have to show any proficiency for any of the basic educational skill sets - the ability to read or write or speak English or to do any basic math. And what about basic science? And yet we expect these students to be able to go on to school or to get (and keep) a job that will pay enough to support them and their families and the babies they WILL produce so that they can and will stay off welfare (not withstanding the current recession). But will they have the basic education to go on to college or a vocational training program and succeed?
With no exit exam, we also have no true way of knowing if their teachers have really taught them (on a comparative national level) what they need to know to go out into the world. We have no way of really knowing if their teachers have earned the salaries and benefits and retirement packages we, the taxpayers, have been paying (and will continue to be paying them) for years to come. Without exit exams, there is no accountability for either the students or the teachers.
As an example, California only started using exit exams around 2006. It was amazing how many students could not pass the English, math or science exams - and yet they had been passed from class to class all the way through high school. They were afforded tutor classes on weekends in preparation to take the exams a second time before graduation, and some passed. Some didn't. There was a huge "to-do" about whether they'd get to march in their graduation exercises. Parents were up in arms. Why couldn't their kids pass these exams? Some had to go to summer school in order to take the exit exams a third time. Bottom Line: Kids start studying better and teachers are held accountable for teaching and better tests when they know there will be no diploma without first passing the exit exams (and parents hold up their end at home re: homework, too). The end results are more accountable teachers, better educated students and a smarter work-force. Exit Exams are a true test of how well our schools are working - or not.
The New Teacher Project (TNTP) produced a paper entitled "Interpreting Race to the Top", TNTP Summary & Analysis of USDE Draft Guidelines - September 2009 (updated and revised 9/7/09) in which it stated that Maine was identified as being one of 14 states that "does not meet one or more criteria" for federal Race to the Top funding. (NOTE: Race to the Top is a federal funding project which would allow states to receive significant federal dollars for education providing the state meets the required federal education guidelines. This program has been frequently discussed on national television programs such as Meet the Press.)
Criteria that Maine lacks to qualify for Race to the Top funding include:
The MEA test was to determine the percentage of students who "Meet or Exceeds Standards..."
The NAEP test was to determine the percentage of student "At or Above Proficient..."
Look at How Maine compared to National Standards:
MEA: in Math NAEP: in Math
2005 - 28% 30% (Maine did better on the NAEP, but not great overall at only 30%)
2007 - 51% 35% (Maine students lost 16% points using the national exam)
2009 - 53% 35% (Maine students lost 18% points using the national exam)
MEA: in Reading NAEP: in Reading
2003 - 45% 2003 - 37% (Maine lost 8% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)
2005 - 56% 2005 - 38% (Maine lost 18% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)
2007 - 65% 2007 - 37% (Maine lost 27% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)
(Source: Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007)
If you read these comparative scores, it means that the MEA tests "dummy down" the standards for students in Maine as compared to the NAEP tests. Even using the lowered MEA tests, almost half of Maine 8th grade students in public schools were not "meetings or exceeding Maine state standards" in Math as recently as 2009.
Using the national standards, only slightly more than one-third of Maine's 8th graders were considered "at or proficient" standards in reading in any one of the three testing years. It should make Maine parents of 8th graders wonder if they can trust how well their student/children are learning in Maine's public schools when there is such disparity between the scoring of MEA and NAEP learning tests.
Even the 2009 U.S. D.O.E. reported that Maine appears to be lowering its proficiency standards to make it seem as though our schools are doing better than they are.
According to Education Week, October 29, 2009, a federal study finds "State standards for what constitutes 'proficient' performance on 8th grade mathematics exams dropped in 16 states between 2005 and 2007. The proficiency bar was raised over the same period in four other states." Maine was one of the 16 states where proficient performance dropped. The four states where the bar was raised were Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
In the 2009 report entitled, "Diplomas Count, Broader Horizons," Maine was noted as having a high school graduation rate of 76.3%; it ranks 13th overall in the country. The state ranks 25th in the nation for the rate of white students graduating, and 30th for rate gains since 1996. However,
- Maine has not defined college or work readiness in its diploma requirements.
- Maine's 16-credit requirement for a high school diploma is less than 39 other states.
Maine has NO HIGH SCHOOL EXIT EXAM (whereas 24 other states do). What does this mean?
It means that all a student has to do to receive a high school diploma is show up enough hours - and get passed from one grade to another and that's enough. He/she doesn't have to show any proficiency for any of the basic educational skill sets - the ability to read or write or speak English or to do any basic math. And what about basic science? And yet we expect these students to be able to go on to school or to get (and keep) a job that will pay enough to support them and their families and the babies they WILL produce so that they can and will stay off welfare (not withstanding the current recession). But will they have the basic education to go on to college or a vocational training program and succeed?
With no exit exam, we also have no true way of knowing if their teachers have really taught them (on a comparative national level) what they need to know to go out into the world. We have no way of really knowing if their teachers have earned the salaries and benefits and retirement packages we, the taxpayers, have been paying (and will continue to be paying them) for years to come. Without exit exams, there is no accountability for either the students or the teachers.
As an example, California only started using exit exams around 2006. It was amazing how many students could not pass the English, math or science exams - and yet they had been passed from class to class all the way through high school. They were afforded tutor classes on weekends in preparation to take the exams a second time before graduation, and some passed. Some didn't. There was a huge "to-do" about whether they'd get to march in their graduation exercises. Parents were up in arms. Why couldn't their kids pass these exams? Some had to go to summer school in order to take the exit exams a third time. Bottom Line: Kids start studying better and teachers are held accountable for teaching and better tests when they know there will be no diploma without first passing the exit exams (and parents hold up their end at home re: homework, too). The end results are more accountable teachers, better educated students and a smarter work-force. Exit Exams are a true test of how well our schools are working - or not.
The New Teacher Project (TNTP) produced a paper entitled "Interpreting Race to the Top", TNTP Summary & Analysis of USDE Draft Guidelines - September 2009 (updated and revised 9/7/09) in which it stated that Maine was identified as being one of 14 states that "does not meet one or more criteria" for federal Race to the Top funding. (NOTE: Race to the Top is a federal funding project which would allow states to receive significant federal dollars for education providing the state meets the required federal education guidelines. This program has been frequently discussed on national television programs such as Meet the Press.)
Criteria that Maine lacks to qualify for Race to the Top funding include:
- Maine "does not have charter school legislation."
- Maine "has not implemented essential elements of state data systems."
- Maine does not have elements in place to "ensure the effectiveness of teachers and administrators."
The 2009 report, "Portrait of a Population - How English Language Learners Are Putting Schools to the Test", produced by Quality Counts, reports:
Maine scores a C+ overall, but a D for "The Teaching Profession" because it ...
- Does not tie teacher evaluations to student outcomes.
- Does not reward teachers for improving student outcomes using performance-based pay.
- Does not incentivize teachers to take on teaching assignments in high-need schools or fields.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO BRING MAINE PUBLIC EDUCATION UP TO ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS?
- We need to decide what a high school diploma should signify.
- We need an assessment system to ensure a mastery of state standards (and have state standards equal to no less than national standards).
- We need a system in place to assess the effectiveness of education spending. (If we are spending more per pupil and the test scores are lower than the national average, something is clearly wrong.)
- We need data systems that track teacher and school quality and we need to make that data public.
- We need performance-based pay to be a component of any teacher contract.
- We need charter schools to be a part of school choice.
PREDICTIONS RE: THE COMING MAINE LEGISLATIVE SESSION (BEGINNING JANUARY 2010)
The Education Committee's time this session will be dominated by budget cuts and "fixes" to the district consolidation law. (Locally we are already hearing the state will cut $146,600 from the current 2009-2010 state allocation to SAD 63 - and more than $350,000 in 2010-2011, in addition to any "penalty" if the district fails to form an RSU. We can expect an even greater financial cut in state subsidy with the way the state deficit is mounting.-That only means higher property taxes if we don't force the district to CUT line items in the existing and projected school budget...something this writer and others urged last May at the Public Hearing for the current school budget. We were ignored.)
An effort will be made to ELIMINATE the school budget referendum process to "save money." (This means that local communities will be stripped of their voting right to review and approve proposed school budgets for any RSU for which they will be paying via their property taxes. The only place money will be "saved" is in Augusta since, I believe, the state pays for the voting at local levels.) If you don't like this idea, this writer suggests you start writing and emailing your Legislative representatives (Senator Richard Rosen and Representative Ben Pratt)
An effort will be made to adopt a statewide teacher contract to "save money." (Who's money? Any statewide contract will be higher than the rural and small communities like Eddington, Clifton, Orrington, etc. currently pay. You can be sure the teacher unions are behind this.) Another reason to start writing/emailing to your legislative representatives.
Charter schools will remain off the table despite the loss of federal funding that will result. (Because charter schools require higher performance from both their teachers and more discipline from their students - and there is pay-for-performance in their contracts so poor performing teachers are not "protected". Consequently the teacher unions do not support charter schools.)
Little else in the way of real reform will happen from Augusta. What else is new?
SOME VIDEO ENTERTAINMENT FROM CLEWLEY FARM RESTAURANT
For all those that missed the Spooktacular Event at the Clewley Farm Restaurant... here is a video, compliments of the video-tographer Pat... and "the clapper" Yvon!!! (They have a great support team helping make the restaurant the "place to be" on weekends!)
DON"T MISS OUT CHRISTMAS EVENT, DECEMBER 20TH- SUNDAY AT THE CLEWLEY FARM RESTAURANT! THE SHOW WILL INCLUDE:
DOLA & COMPANY
THE FAHEY SISTER'S
ALISON AIMES
....AND MORE!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3TfCjO2BzE
DON"T MISS OUT CHRISTMAS EVENT, DECEMBER 20TH- SUNDAY AT THE CLEWLEY FARM RESTAURANT! THE SHOW WILL INCLUDE:
DOLA & COMPANY
THE FAHEY SISTER'S
ALISON AIMES
....AND MORE!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3TfCjO2BzE
Friday, November 27, 2009
MONDAY NIGHT WITH BE SCHOOL BOARD TIME - SHOULD BE INTERESTING
Holbrook Middle School at 6:30pm, November 30th will be the time and place for this month's school board meeting. Based on the contents of the Board members packets (in preparation for the meeting) there may be some surprises in store and maybe some fireworks - if any of the Board members will stand up and ask for an accounting from the Chair and the Interim Superintendent.
Seems Mr. Hart is doing his best these days to undermine the efforts of the legal team working on the lawsuit. And the Board Chair seems to prefer to eliminate as much input from the communities as possible. Of course the Chair has avoided having any kind of RSU committee appointed or working on a plan from as far back as last June. Additionally, we've known for a long time Mr. Hart's position has been there would be no local boards/councils or committees regardless of how the people in the communities feel.
Perhaps Eddington and Clifton should look at what Otis is planning on doing - forming an AOS - an Alternative Organized Structure. Might be a good thing for CSD 8 (Airline), too. Might make more sense than what Hart and Varnum are trying to force-feed those of us who are over paying through the tax nose. After all, Eddington already owns the Eddington Elementary School and could handle Eddington and Clifton elementary students. And our two towns own at least half, maybe two-thirds, of the Holbrook Middle School. Wonder why an AOS has never been been presented as an option to our townspeople? I'm told even Kevin Mills, school board rep from Holden who was on the RPC last time, wanted to at least look at that option.
An AOS, as I understand it, just centralizes the central office functions - the superintendent, the business office, operations and maintenance, etc. BUT each town or school district remains as it currently is - with its own budget and schools and school board. That way there is local control over the local schools. That is what most of our communities have wanted all along.
Since the state hasn't paid its portion of the school-year bill as it is (not for the past three years - maybe more) and isn't paying even the new RSUs the portion that was promised, what guarantee or benefit is there in forming an RSU for us? We give up local control and still end up paying the bill. Such a deal.
But for the smaller towns like Clifton, CSD 8 (which is comprised of four small towns), and Eddington - with what would be the lowest portion of students in the proposed RSU and the lower property valuations, there would be a higher ratio of money going toward the total RSU than if we were an AOS. The really bill tax bill would be created by the population and high valuation caused by the larger towns (like Holden and Orrington).
I don't know where Dedham's mindset in this situation but it would seem that the financial impact would not be as beneficial to them to be in an RSU as to be in an AOS.
As was explained to me by a person in Otis, towns that do not have a school - or own a school - still get to educate their students by "tuitioning" their students to those communities that do provide the schools. Some Dedham students already attend Holden and are provided transportation by SAD 63. And SAD 63 students attend high school via the "tuition" process. Seems to this writer those are just another form of the AOS concept.
Do Eddington and Clifton need Holden? Eddington has an elementary school. If we partnered with Otis, Clifton students might be able to attend either Eddington or Otis. Eddington and Clifton own enough of Holbrook to negotiate a no-cost tuition there for our students and a small cuition for Otis students. We already tuition our students into a high school. So why aren't we talking about forming an AOS with Otis. Maybe CSD 8 would like to join.
How many more people are tired of being hog-tied by the current Board Chair and Interim Superintendent who are consistently working against Eddington and Clifton? And who speaks up and says "enough is enough"? Maybe it is time.
At the moment, taxpayers in SAD 63 are paying more per student within the pre-K through grades 8 in the SAD 63 programs than the cost of tuition to any of the three high schools. When we consider that all of the bills do get paid by the end of the school year, even though the state claims a shortfall for most of the last half of the year (this year the shortfall is expected to be $340,000. or more), there can only be one way the SAD 63 schools stay open and everyone gets paid...the portion of the school budget we are being charged locally must have been significantly inflated. (And even that left over $117,000. to pave that second parking lot at the Holden School last year...)
Let Holden form an RSU with Orrington and Dedham. Maybe CSD 8 will want to re-think its position. After all, how much influence will any of its four towns have on the large RSU Board with Orrington, Dedham and Holden if there are no local councils? Something to think about?
And what started this line of thinking? A particular meeting November 17 where the Chairs of those school boards (SAD 63 included) met to consider eliminating the citizen representative in any Regional Planning Committee for the forthcoming RSU - and where they told Otis they should join the RSU with Ellsworth (even though the voters in Otis have voted TWICE not to do so, because Otis intends to form an AOS.) The Town of Otis may be the smartest of us all.
People should read the public documents being written and presented by the various members of the SAD 63 school board. And you trust these people to look out for your best interests and those of your communities? You should attend more of the school board meetings and watch them in action. As I said, Monday night may be interesting.
Seems Mr. Hart is doing his best these days to undermine the efforts of the legal team working on the lawsuit. And the Board Chair seems to prefer to eliminate as much input from the communities as possible. Of course the Chair has avoided having any kind of RSU committee appointed or working on a plan from as far back as last June. Additionally, we've known for a long time Mr. Hart's position has been there would be no local boards/councils or committees regardless of how the people in the communities feel.
Perhaps Eddington and Clifton should look at what Otis is planning on doing - forming an AOS - an Alternative Organized Structure. Might be a good thing for CSD 8 (Airline), too. Might make more sense than what Hart and Varnum are trying to force-feed those of us who are over paying through the tax nose. After all, Eddington already owns the Eddington Elementary School and could handle Eddington and Clifton elementary students. And our two towns own at least half, maybe two-thirds, of the Holbrook Middle School. Wonder why an AOS has never been been presented as an option to our townspeople? I'm told even Kevin Mills, school board rep from Holden who was on the RPC last time, wanted to at least look at that option.
An AOS, as I understand it, just centralizes the central office functions - the superintendent, the business office, operations and maintenance, etc. BUT each town or school district remains as it currently is - with its own budget and schools and school board. That way there is local control over the local schools. That is what most of our communities have wanted all along.
Since the state hasn't paid its portion of the school-year bill as it is (not for the past three years - maybe more) and isn't paying even the new RSUs the portion that was promised, what guarantee or benefit is there in forming an RSU for us? We give up local control and still end up paying the bill. Such a deal.
But for the smaller towns like Clifton, CSD 8 (which is comprised of four small towns), and Eddington - with what would be the lowest portion of students in the proposed RSU and the lower property valuations, there would be a higher ratio of money going toward the total RSU than if we were an AOS. The really bill tax bill would be created by the population and high valuation caused by the larger towns (like Holden and Orrington).
I don't know where Dedham's mindset in this situation but it would seem that the financial impact would not be as beneficial to them to be in an RSU as to be in an AOS.
As was explained to me by a person in Otis, towns that do not have a school - or own a school - still get to educate their students by "tuitioning" their students to those communities that do provide the schools. Some Dedham students already attend Holden and are provided transportation by SAD 63. And SAD 63 students attend high school via the "tuition" process. Seems to this writer those are just another form of the AOS concept.
Do Eddington and Clifton need Holden? Eddington has an elementary school. If we partnered with Otis, Clifton students might be able to attend either Eddington or Otis. Eddington and Clifton own enough of Holbrook to negotiate a no-cost tuition there for our students and a small cuition for Otis students. We already tuition our students into a high school. So why aren't we talking about forming an AOS with Otis. Maybe CSD 8 would like to join.
How many more people are tired of being hog-tied by the current Board Chair and Interim Superintendent who are consistently working against Eddington and Clifton? And who speaks up and says "enough is enough"? Maybe it is time.
At the moment, taxpayers in SAD 63 are paying more per student within the pre-K through grades 8 in the SAD 63 programs than the cost of tuition to any of the three high schools. When we consider that all of the bills do get paid by the end of the school year, even though the state claims a shortfall for most of the last half of the year (this year the shortfall is expected to be $340,000. or more), there can only be one way the SAD 63 schools stay open and everyone gets paid...the portion of the school budget we are being charged locally must have been significantly inflated. (And even that left over $117,000. to pave that second parking lot at the Holden School last year...)
Let Holden form an RSU with Orrington and Dedham. Maybe CSD 8 will want to re-think its position. After all, how much influence will any of its four towns have on the large RSU Board with Orrington, Dedham and Holden if there are no local councils? Something to think about?
And what started this line of thinking? A particular meeting November 17 where the Chairs of those school boards (SAD 63 included) met to consider eliminating the citizen representative in any Regional Planning Committee for the forthcoming RSU - and where they told Otis they should join the RSU with Ellsworth (even though the voters in Otis have voted TWICE not to do so, because Otis intends to form an AOS.) The Town of Otis may be the smartest of us all.
People should read the public documents being written and presented by the various members of the SAD 63 school board. And you trust these people to look out for your best interests and those of your communities? You should attend more of the school board meetings and watch them in action. As I said, Monday night may be interesting.
MORE RE: THE COMMISSIONER'S HEARING
I stand corrected. In the previous positing this writer said the fact that the Commissioner has now scheduled the long sought hearing (re: the SAD 63 Board's termination of the former superintendent) would appear to make a decision from the Maine Supreme Court moot.
First, I meant any court order to the Commissioner to hold the hearing would appear to have been done - or at least scheduled - by the time of the Court's decision, and thereby making it (the court order) moot. But that may not necessarily be a true, or at least a complete statement. A source close to the case points out that "It would be the conduct of the hearing that could moot the law court appeal, not merely scheduling it, and even then it might not be moot under court doctrines that call for cases of importance to be decided, sometimes even when the immediate issue appears to have been resolved by the passage of time or subsequent events. Therefore the District certainly should not be stating the appeal is moot, as it is not yet moot and may never be moot."
This writer appreciates the information provided and the clarification. The correction is noted.
First, I meant any court order to the Commissioner to hold the hearing would appear to have been done - or at least scheduled - by the time of the Court's decision, and thereby making it (the court order) moot. But that may not necessarily be a true, or at least a complete statement. A source close to the case points out that "It would be the conduct of the hearing that could moot the law court appeal, not merely scheduling it, and even then it might not be moot under court doctrines that call for cases of importance to be decided, sometimes even when the immediate issue appears to have been resolved by the passage of time or subsequent events. Therefore the District certainly should not be stating the appeal is moot, as it is not yet moot and may never be moot."
This writer appreciates the information provided and the clarification. The correction is noted.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION SCHEDULES HEARING RE: TERMINATION OF FORMER SAD 63 SUPERINTENDENT
Maine Commissioner of Education, Susan Gendron, has announced she will conduct an official hearing regarding the termination of former SAD 63 school superintendent Louise Regan. Pursuant to the governing statute, 20-A, M.R.S.A. (section 1052 subsection 3), the hearing will be limited to the following issues:
Was the termination
A. For cause;
B. After due notice and investigation; and
C. By a majority vote of the full membership of the school board.
No other issues will be considered.
A prehearing conference will be conducted via telephone on December 15 with certain guidelines and restrictions as have been defined by the Commissioner. At the culmination of the prehearing conference, the Commissioner will make whatever rulings she feels she can at that time.
At the end of the prehearing conference, any issues she believes are unresolved will be set for an evidentiary hearing at the Department of Education in Augusta on December 21st and 22nd. Certain guidelines have been set by the Commissioner for the evidentiary hearing should it be required.
The communication from the Commissioner regarding this hearing was delivered prior to any decision by the Maine Supreme Court which appears to make such a decision moot.
Was the termination
A. For cause;
B. After due notice and investigation; and
C. By a majority vote of the full membership of the school board.
No other issues will be considered.
A prehearing conference will be conducted via telephone on December 15 with certain guidelines and restrictions as have been defined by the Commissioner. At the culmination of the prehearing conference, the Commissioner will make whatever rulings she feels she can at that time.
At the end of the prehearing conference, any issues she believes are unresolved will be set for an evidentiary hearing at the Department of Education in Augusta on December 21st and 22nd. Certain guidelines have been set by the Commissioner for the evidentiary hearing should it be required.
The communication from the Commissioner regarding this hearing was delivered prior to any decision by the Maine Supreme Court which appears to make such a decision moot.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
TEAM CLIFTON NAMED TO RPC
Team Clifton has been finalized for the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) - to work on the proposed Regional School Unit (RSC).
Members are: Chris Fickett, School Board Representative; Penny Peasley, Clifton Board of Selectmen Representative; and Ed Rosenberg, Town Citizen Representative.
Town Eddington was named at last Tuesday's Selectmen's meeting (and posted on an earlier blog).
The next SAD 63 School Board meeting will be Monday, November 30th at the Holbrook Middle School - at 6:30pm. As of this date, the Town Managers in Eddington and Clifton have not been advised by SAD 63 Board Chairman of any proposed first meeting (date, time or place) of the RPC. If Chairman Varnum has not scheduled the first RPC meeting by that time, Teams Eddington and Clifton have decided to initiate communications with the other proposed partners and set the meeting's date, time and place.
Members are: Chris Fickett, School Board Representative; Penny Peasley, Clifton Board of Selectmen Representative; and Ed Rosenberg, Town Citizen Representative.
Town Eddington was named at last Tuesday's Selectmen's meeting (and posted on an earlier blog).
The next SAD 63 School Board meeting will be Monday, November 30th at the Holbrook Middle School - at 6:30pm. As of this date, the Town Managers in Eddington and Clifton have not been advised by SAD 63 Board Chairman of any proposed first meeting (date, time or place) of the RPC. If Chairman Varnum has not scheduled the first RPC meeting by that time, Teams Eddington and Clifton have decided to initiate communications with the other proposed partners and set the meeting's date, time and place.
MAINE EDUCATION - PART 3
The following is a continuation of a series that began following a luncheon I attended a few weeks ago in Bangor presented by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. Part 2 was contained in yesterday's posting (the second half of the posting following the notification of tonight's special meeting between the Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton).
The information being presented, provided by the Maine Heritage Policy Center, relates to Public Education in Maine. It is not specific to Eddington, Clifton or Holden. However, since we will soon be gathering (and voting) to consider consolidating with four potential partners to form a Regional School Union (RSU), the overall state of public education in this state is relevant to what we should be looking at - and what we should consider as we determine the standards under which we will want the RSU to operate and maintain.
PART 3
What are we doing wrong?
Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation
School Management: Maine received a D (45th in the nation)....because:
The information being presented, provided by the Maine Heritage Policy Center, relates to Public Education in Maine. It is not specific to Eddington, Clifton or Holden. However, since we will soon be gathering (and voting) to consider consolidating with four potential partners to form a Regional School Union (RSU), the overall state of public education in this state is relevant to what we should be looking at - and what we should consider as we determine the standards under which we will want the RSU to operate and maintain.
PART 3
What are we doing wrong?
Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation
School Management: Maine received a D (45th in the nation)....because:
- "Maine does a poor job managing its schools in a way that encourages thoughtful innovation."
- "93% of teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their teaching."
- Maine does not sanction low-performing schools (32 states do).
- "Maine does not have a charter school law" (40 states do).
School Finance: Maine received a C (42nd in the nation)....because:
- Maine "receives a below-average score for the online accessibility of its financial data."
- Maine does not allow local districts full authority over teacher pay. (25 states do.)
- Maine also "does not have a performance pay program for teachers." (10 states do.)
School staffing: Maine received a B/C....because:
- Maine receives above-average marks for the testing required of new teachers.
- Maine receives an F for the strength of its teacher evaluation systems.
- "74% of Maine principals say that teacher unions or associations are a barrier to the removal of ineffective teachers, 13 percentage points above the national average of 61%"
Educational Data: Maine received a D (45th in the nation)....because:
- "Maine gets a below-average mark for its state data system."
- "The state does not have a teacher-identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students." (21 states do.)
- Maine does not publicly report data such as student remediation rates in college. (18 states do.)
Educational Technology: Maine received a D (38th in the nation).... because:
- "The state does not offer a computer-based assessment and does not require technology testing for teachers."
- "Maine's "D" grade is the result of little research affirming the effectiveness of the state's first-in-the-nation program that equips all seventh- and eighth-grade students and most high school students with laptops."
Summary of Major Findings...
- "Rigid education bureaucracies impede quality."
- "State data systems provide limited information on school operations and outcomes."
- "The teacher pipeline fails to provide a diverse pool of high-quality educators."
- "Teacher evaluations are not based on performance. Major barriers exist to the removal of poor-performing teachers."
More information will follow in Part 4 of this series. Stay tuned.
Monday, November 23, 2009
SCHOOL NEWS FOLLOW-UP (TIDBITS AND DATA)
There will be a special meeting at the Eddington Town Office tomorrow night (the 24th) at 6pm between the Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton (and possibly John Butts, Holden Town Manager and Eddington resident). The meeting is to discuss the second parcel of land at the Holden School that may be deeded to the Town of Holden from the SAD 63 School Board. The meeting was arranged between the Selectmen because they don't agree with School Board Chairman, Don Varnum, that the wording on the Release Deed can (or should) be worked out as part of the regular agenda at the School Board's November 30 meeting. It is this writer's hope that the Selectmen will reconsider the entire position of deeding the second parcel at this time.
SAD 63 will (hopefully) be sitting down soon with four potential partners for school consolidation: Dedham, Orrington, CSD 8 (Airline) and Otis. Team Eddington has already been named: (Therese Anderson, School Board rep; Ralph Russell, representing the Eddington Board of Selectmen; and this writer as the Eddington citizen representative). Team Clifton is expected to be completed by Tuesday night. Currently that team is: Chris Fickett, School Board rep; Penny Peasley, representing the Clifton Board of Selectmen; and the citizen representative is expected to be finalized by Tuesday).
This writer has been informed that the Town of Otis owns the building in which Otis students attend and Orrington students are still going to school in some temporary buildings. We know that the Eddington school needed to transfer some students to the Holden school this year because of over-crowding. At this point this writer doesn't know the capacity status of the schools in Dedham or Airline; however, if there is any population growth in future years in any of the proposed RSU K-8 schools, there may be a need to expand.
It's always easier to give land away than it is to get it back. If SAD 63 needs to agree to do more maintenance that it already does to the Nature Trails on the land at the Holden School, so be it.
When one sees how much money the voters/taxpayers have spent in (and at the direction and mandate of) the Town of Holden for the paving of the second parking lot at the Holden School and for the former Maintenance Garage, Eddington and Clifton taxpayers may want to re-think how much more we should be "giving" and "trusting" re: this latest land transfer deal.
For instance - let's look at the former Maintenance Garage "deal."
The intent of that agreement (with the Town of Holden) was to share a with Holden so SAD 63 school buses would have a place for storage and maintenance with the Holden's fire and fleet vehicles. EXCEPT that Holden decided that SAD 63 should pay for that portion of the garage used to house the SAD 63 buses. (Seems fair.) Consequently, SAD 63 needed to sign a 10-year lease with Holden to cover the cost of paying for the SAD 63 portion of the garage. And so it was done. HOWEVER, once the 10 years was up, and the cost of construction completed, Holden reportedly came back to the SAD 63 Board (according to this writer's source) and wanted another lease - because there was the ongoing cost of operating the SAD 63 portion of the maintenance garage (electricity, etc.) (Again, seems fair.)
EXCEPT - the amount of the new annual lease was the cost of the original amount (the annual amount paid during the construction of the garage) plus the new annual operating costs. Pretty good deal for Holden - not so good a deal for the Eddington & Clifton taxpayers.
And then there was this past year's parking lot paving project - that came in closer to $100,000. than $40,000. (because of a written order and time deadline from the Town of Holden.) Of course the Town of Holden expects to share the use of the school's parking lot - associated with the ball field. (In exchange, the Town of Holden offers the use of its parking lot when it might be needed, which doesn't appear to be as likely as the Town's use of the school's newly paved parking lot. However, the school parking lot paving was paid for by tax dollars collected via property taxes from Eddington and Clifton taxpayers as well as those from Holden. When was the last time the taxpayers in Clifton or Eddington benefited like that in their towns?). Seems like the Town of Holden has, once again, benefited from the Eddington & Clifton taxpayer dollars.
So back to the question raised months ago. WHY is the Town of Holden so anxious to have the land at the Holden school transferred now that there is no question of consolidation with Brewer - and therefore no question of a Brewer influence trying to shut down any of the SAD 63 schools to fill up the new Brewer elementary school? One wonders if the old switcher-oos we have seen and experienced in the past are not once again in the making, especially since Chairman Varnum, from Holden, has been so quick to overlook (and conveniently forget) agreements to work with the Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton in the matter of these parcels of land.
As the potential partners meet to form an RSU (if we can ever get Chairman Varnum to set a date, time and place for the initial meeting), the most essential element all the potential partners will need to have throughout the process will be Trust in the good and honorable intentions of everyone from every team. Fortunately, Kevin Mills will be the School Board rep from the Town of Holden.
Until such time as there is an approved RSU plan, this writer urges the Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton to wait on any approval to transfer the second parcel of land at the Holden school. (Besides, wait until you see how much larger the second parcel is now compared to the originally drawn map when the first parcel was being approved for transfer - and the ball field was decided to hold as part of the school property....)
*****
Follow-up to the Posting re: Maine Education:
In 1992, Maine public education spending per pupil was approximately $5,400.00 per year. In 2007 that public education spending per pupil was $11,387. The inflation rate during that same period of time was 46%; however, the increase in spending per pupil in Maine increased 113%.
During that same period (1992 - 2007) the U.S. average spending increased from $5,000. per pupil to $9,666. So the data shows that Maine is clearly outspending the national average
How Many Maine Resident children were enrolled in Maine Elementary and Secondary Public Schools between 1995 - 2008?
In 1995 there were approximately 217,000 resident children enrolled in Maine public elementary and secondary schools. By 2007, that figure was approximately 197,000. By 2008, the figure was down to less than 195,000.
The Pupil/Teacher Ratio between 1988-2006 has fallen from 14.5:1 in 1988 to 11.5:1 in 2006. This means that the average class size in 1988 was 14.5 per teacher in 1988 whereas the class size had reduced to an average class size of 11.5 per teacher in 2006. This is in Maine.
(The Source of all of the above data is: U.S. Census, Maine Heritage Policy Center)
So - since the pupil enrollment over the last 15-17 years in Maine has decreased and the class size per teacher has become smaller and the cost per pupil has increased significantly above the cost of inflation one would expect Maine's public school pupils would test very well. WRONG.
From 2005 through 2000, our pupils' MEA scores progressively lowered from 2000 to 2005 in Reading going from just above 540 to approximately 538. In Writing the MEA scores went up briefly in 2001 to approximately 538 and then level off at approximately 536. In Math, the scores were consistently low - never scoring above 529. In Science the scores in 2001 were the high point at approximately 532. Every other year was close to 528 at best. With top possible scores being 550, these scores were abominable. (Source: Maine Dept. of Education)
So the test used was changed to the SAT in 2006. In the SAT, the lowest score in a 480. Top score is a 520. Test scores for 11th graders in Maine from 2006 to 2009 were as follows:
Reading: 2006: 550; 2007-510; 2008-510; 2009-505
Math: 2006: 518; 2007-515; 2008-515; 2009-515
Writing: 2006: 496: 2007-494; 2008-494; 2009-493
(Source: College Board, Maine Heritage Policy Center - approximate reading of graphs by this writer provided by Maine Heritage Policy Center)
QUESTIONS: If Mainers are spending more per pupil in recent years AND having smaller classes per teacher, WHY are students testing so poorly? Low scores indicate pupils are not learning. We need to ask why? It's more that what are we getting for the dollars being spent. It has to do with the future of our children and the future of our state - our country.
SAD 63 will (hopefully) be sitting down soon with four potential partners for school consolidation: Dedham, Orrington, CSD 8 (Airline) and Otis. Team Eddington has already been named: (Therese Anderson, School Board rep; Ralph Russell, representing the Eddington Board of Selectmen; and this writer as the Eddington citizen representative). Team Clifton is expected to be completed by Tuesday night. Currently that team is: Chris Fickett, School Board rep; Penny Peasley, representing the Clifton Board of Selectmen; and the citizen representative is expected to be finalized by Tuesday).
This writer has been informed that the Town of Otis owns the building in which Otis students attend and Orrington students are still going to school in some temporary buildings. We know that the Eddington school needed to transfer some students to the Holden school this year because of over-crowding. At this point this writer doesn't know the capacity status of the schools in Dedham or Airline; however, if there is any population growth in future years in any of the proposed RSU K-8 schools, there may be a need to expand.
It's always easier to give land away than it is to get it back. If SAD 63 needs to agree to do more maintenance that it already does to the Nature Trails on the land at the Holden School, so be it.
When one sees how much money the voters/taxpayers have spent in (and at the direction and mandate of) the Town of Holden for the paving of the second parking lot at the Holden School and for the former Maintenance Garage, Eddington and Clifton taxpayers may want to re-think how much more we should be "giving" and "trusting" re: this latest land transfer deal.
For instance - let's look at the former Maintenance Garage "deal."
The intent of that agreement (with the Town of Holden) was to share a with Holden so SAD 63 school buses would have a place for storage and maintenance with the Holden's fire and fleet vehicles. EXCEPT that Holden decided that SAD 63 should pay for that portion of the garage used to house the SAD 63 buses. (Seems fair.) Consequently, SAD 63 needed to sign a 10-year lease with Holden to cover the cost of paying for the SAD 63 portion of the garage. And so it was done. HOWEVER, once the 10 years was up, and the cost of construction completed, Holden reportedly came back to the SAD 63 Board (according to this writer's source) and wanted another lease - because there was the ongoing cost of operating the SAD 63 portion of the maintenance garage (electricity, etc.) (Again, seems fair.)
EXCEPT - the amount of the new annual lease was the cost of the original amount (the annual amount paid during the construction of the garage) plus the new annual operating costs. Pretty good deal for Holden - not so good a deal for the Eddington & Clifton taxpayers.
And then there was this past year's parking lot paving project - that came in closer to $100,000. than $40,000. (because of a written order and time deadline from the Town of Holden.) Of course the Town of Holden expects to share the use of the school's parking lot - associated with the ball field. (In exchange, the Town of Holden offers the use of its parking lot when it might be needed, which doesn't appear to be as likely as the Town's use of the school's newly paved parking lot. However, the school parking lot paving was paid for by tax dollars collected via property taxes from Eddington and Clifton taxpayers as well as those from Holden. When was the last time the taxpayers in Clifton or Eddington benefited like that in their towns?). Seems like the Town of Holden has, once again, benefited from the Eddington & Clifton taxpayer dollars.
So back to the question raised months ago. WHY is the Town of Holden so anxious to have the land at the Holden school transferred now that there is no question of consolidation with Brewer - and therefore no question of a Brewer influence trying to shut down any of the SAD 63 schools to fill up the new Brewer elementary school? One wonders if the old switcher-oos we have seen and experienced in the past are not once again in the making, especially since Chairman Varnum, from Holden, has been so quick to overlook (and conveniently forget) agreements to work with the Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton in the matter of these parcels of land.
As the potential partners meet to form an RSU (if we can ever get Chairman Varnum to set a date, time and place for the initial meeting), the most essential element all the potential partners will need to have throughout the process will be Trust in the good and honorable intentions of everyone from every team. Fortunately, Kevin Mills will be the School Board rep from the Town of Holden.
Until such time as there is an approved RSU plan, this writer urges the Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton to wait on any approval to transfer the second parcel of land at the Holden school. (Besides, wait until you see how much larger the second parcel is now compared to the originally drawn map when the first parcel was being approved for transfer - and the ball field was decided to hold as part of the school property....)
*****
Follow-up to the Posting re: Maine Education:
In 1992, Maine public education spending per pupil was approximately $5,400.00 per year. In 2007 that public education spending per pupil was $11,387. The inflation rate during that same period of time was 46%; however, the increase in spending per pupil in Maine increased 113%.
During that same period (1992 - 2007) the U.S. average spending increased from $5,000. per pupil to $9,666. So the data shows that Maine is clearly outspending the national average
How Many Maine Resident children were enrolled in Maine Elementary and Secondary Public Schools between 1995 - 2008?
In 1995 there were approximately 217,000 resident children enrolled in Maine public elementary and secondary schools. By 2007, that figure was approximately 197,000. By 2008, the figure was down to less than 195,000.
The Pupil/Teacher Ratio between 1988-2006 has fallen from 14.5:1 in 1988 to 11.5:1 in 2006. This means that the average class size in 1988 was 14.5 per teacher in 1988 whereas the class size had reduced to an average class size of 11.5 per teacher in 2006. This is in Maine.
(The Source of all of the above data is: U.S. Census, Maine Heritage Policy Center)
So - since the pupil enrollment over the last 15-17 years in Maine has decreased and the class size per teacher has become smaller and the cost per pupil has increased significantly above the cost of inflation one would expect Maine's public school pupils would test very well. WRONG.
From 2005 through 2000, our pupils' MEA scores progressively lowered from 2000 to 2005 in Reading going from just above 540 to approximately 538. In Writing the MEA scores went up briefly in 2001 to approximately 538 and then level off at approximately 536. In Math, the scores were consistently low - never scoring above 529. In Science the scores in 2001 were the high point at approximately 532. Every other year was close to 528 at best. With top possible scores being 550, these scores were abominable. (Source: Maine Dept. of Education)
So the test used was changed to the SAT in 2006. In the SAT, the lowest score in a 480. Top score is a 520. Test scores for 11th graders in Maine from 2006 to 2009 were as follows:
Reading: 2006: 550; 2007-510; 2008-510; 2009-505
Math: 2006: 518; 2007-515; 2008-515; 2009-515
Writing: 2006: 496: 2007-494; 2008-494; 2009-493
(Source: College Board, Maine Heritage Policy Center - approximate reading of graphs by this writer provided by Maine Heritage Policy Center)
QUESTIONS: If Mainers are spending more per pupil in recent years AND having smaller classes per teacher, WHY are students testing so poorly? Low scores indicate pupils are not learning. We need to ask why? It's more that what are we getting for the dollars being spent. It has to do with the future of our children and the future of our state - our country.
Monday, November 16, 2009
SAD 63 LAWSUIT MEDIATION NOVEMBER 14
This past Saturday, the 14th, there was a rather large meeting at the Holbrook Middle School. It took over several rooms because it was a formal Mediation between the parties involved in the long-running lawsuit that began when the SAD 63 School Board initially sought to hold the former SAD 63 superintendent, Louise Regan, accountable for certain unauthorized actions. (More information on the history of this matter can be found in previous postings on this blog.) The Bottom Line is that Ms. Regan initiated a lawsuit against the entire Board, as well as five individual members of the Board, and the Board terminated the superintendent from her position.
Because the school district carried an insurance policy ,which came into play once the Board found itself in the position of having to defend itself in this matter, the insurance company urged Mediation be considered at this time (even though the School Board has been successful in the U.S. Federal District Court and, in the writer's opinion, will be successful in the Maine Supreme Court - information which can be found in previous postings on this blog).
It should be noted that the insurance company has been paying out more than the original policy required and that those payments have been for the Board's legal representation. However, even with those payments, the Board has still incurred legal costs which still need to be paid by the voters/taxpayers of Eddington, Clifton and Holden. The longer the case goes on, the more these legal costs will add up - and that does not include the cost of any settlement, should there be one. It is not known if the insurance company will even participate in sharing the burden of any such settlement, should there be one.
So why would the insurance company be pushing SAD 63 and Ms. Regan to enter into Mediation, knowing that (to this point) SAD 63 has been doing quite well? An insurance company is a business. And like any business, they have to produce a year-end Profit and Loss statement. Any outstanding legal case is an open-ended unknown. It gets listed as a footnote in the "Loss" column. Having the case open-ended makes it worse. Getting the case resolved, is better because seeing the final cost of the "loss" is better than not knowing how much more the company is going to "lose" from its profits.
If SAD 63 had filed a cross-complaint against the Plaintiff (Regan), it might have been able to recover costs (which could then reimburse the insurance company). It has tried to recover the costs associated with the case filed in U.S. Federal District Court but that is currently on appeal.
However, the insurance company has spent a lot of money to cover SAD 63's legal fees - more than we expected initially considering the size of the policy. But, as good as the legal services have been - and they have been excellent in this writer's opinion, those costs have been a "loss" as far as the insurance company is concerned (financially speaking). Therefore, it is in the insurance company's best interest to end this matter as soon as possible - to stop the outflow of money (what the insurance company sees as their money).
The other side of the coin is this: We, the voters/taxpayers of Eddington, Clifton and Holden see it as our money that is also paying the bill for the legal services, and it will our money that will be paying at least some, if not all of any settlement costs - not to mention how we may feel about paying anything at all to someone we believe doesn't deserve to be rewarded for doing numerous acts that were not only wrong but betrayed the public trust (of her position). This does not appear to be of significant consequence to the insurance company. The insurance company seems to be more interested in getting this matter closed and "off the books."
And so the Mediation Meeting was scheduled. And it ran all day - beginning early Saturday morning and ran until the evening hours. The Mediator was an attorney who is experienced in these matters. By a flip of the coin, he met first with Ms. Regan and her traditional team (always the team) of attorneys. After some period of time, the Mediator then moved to the room where most of the current SAD 63 Board were in attendance (two being absent because of work schedules) in addition to those individuals who are being individually sued and are no longer on the Board.
The insurance company representative was initially in a third room but at some point may have joined the Board members.
Because the discussions were all done in "Executive Session", specifics of how the Mediation went are unknown. However, having been in mediations in the past, I can provide some general ideas and, having watched the legal representatives of this case in court it is not too difficult to imagine certain aspects of the proceedings.
So, if you will...
The Mediator would have listened to Ms. Regan's attorney spell out all of her claims and justifications of "irreparable harm" done to her by the alleged actions of the Board (including the Board's investigation - since he likes to bring that up every chance he can) and how that has damaged her professionally, emotionally and in every other way he could throw out - all of which adds up to (and in their opinion justifies) an extraordinary settlement fee (meaning high - I would expect something in the neighborhood of $1,000,000) as well as her legal costs which I am sure are equally extraordinary (meaning high - I would expect well over $150,000).
In light of the fact that Ms. Regan's annual salary was $91,000 as joint superintendent for SAD 63 and Airline CSD 8 before she was terminated by SAD 63, plus significant benefits, paid time off and additional financial fees and bonuses, it is unlikely she would obtain similar employment in the future. Particularly with the history of having been discharged under the current circumstances. It is reasonable that these will be added to reasons why the settlement should be high - from Ms. Regan's perspective.
As has been noted in previous postings relating to court hearings, Ms. Regan's attorneys always appear in no less than twos which allows for plenty of billable hours. And the charges in this case have been added gradually which also provides for plenty of billable hours (see previous postings). So it is understandable her legal counsel will try to collect a hefty fee. Remember, it is his business to make money here, too. (Of course, in most cases of this nature, the legal counsel receives one-third of the total settlement. So, at some point Ms. Regan's counsel may magnanimously offer to "reduce" his fees in exchange for the Board accepting some dollar figure for Ms. Regan's "settlement" fee. But, I would guess that legal counsel will take a goodly portion of Ms. Regan's settlement in addition to any attorneys' fee he may also negotiate.)
While making his presentation to the Mediator, it is also reasonable to believe that Ms. Regan's counsel provided quite a dramatic flair. It is his nature, as documented by his presentation at the U.S. Federal District Court before Justice Kravchuk. He did try at the U.S. Supreme Court but the Justices didn't seem to be interested in allowing him time for the "show."
So then the Mediator - after giving enough time to get the picture - and obtaining as much "evidence" as he felt he needed - would then have met with the Board (who are the Defendants). Perhaps his first step would have been to tell the Board how much money the Plaintiff (Ms. Regan) thought was a reasonable settlement or what she was willing to drop her lawsuit in exchange for receiving (meaning how much money would make her lawsuit against them go away). OR the Mediator might have asked the Board what their position was - against the Plaintiff.
I'm inclined to think the Mediator would just have hit the Board straight off with how much the Plaintiff wanted ($$$). And then, because I think the amount is/was outrageously high (based strictly on my impression of the Plaintiff's legal counsel's performance in two court hearings), I expect - certainly hope - the Board was shocked and righteously indignant and said "No Way!"
And then the "negotiations" would have gotten under way. Back and forth - all day long. Many times back and forth - each side (maybe) giving and taking a bit (maybe). You have to have empathy for the Mediator in this type of a situation. as tired as everyone else probably way at the end of the day, the mediator must have been exhausted! I hope he was well paid - and by the insurance company!!
Somewhere along the way, I expect somebody would have said/suggested that if the case goes to trial (projected to be sometime in April) and if it is a jury trial, which is what the Plaintiff is asking for, there is a possibility that members of the jury (human beings) might be sympathetic to the Plaintiff and award her big bucks...so maybe it would be better to settle now and avoid that possibility. (Do we hear Threats of the unknown and Feeding on Fears here? It always happens. Do you want Door #1 or Door #2 - The Lady or The Tiger. Remember that story?)
On the other hand, and I can only hope members of the Board thought and said something like the following:
1. Did we do the right thing?
2. Did we follow proper state law procedure?
3. Do/Did we have documentation - proof - evidence that supported our decision/decisions?
4. If we did, why would we want to settle before the Commissioner of Education holds the hearing state law requires her to hold to review what the Board did (the termination) and which is why we went to the Maine Supreme Court to force the Commissioner to do?
5. IF the termination (process and consequence) was valid, then don't most of the Plaintiff's claims go away by the very fact that the Board was right and correct in its actions AND THEREFORE the Board has nothing for which to compensate the Plaintiff (meaning no money to award her - no settlement - no compensation due)?
6. IF the bulk of her claims/issues become moot (nothing - not valid) because of a hearing before the Commissioner, then the Board's legal counsel can argue before the Superior Court judge (if the Plaintiff insists on going forward with the rest of her issues/claims) that everything that the Commissioner has ruled on cannot be entered into evidence in the courtroom because it is not relevant (since the Board has been found to have acted within state law).
That way, the Plaintiff does not get to argue her termination all over again and that reduces the chance of the Plaintiff playing on the emotions of the members of the jury.
BUT, if the judge allows the termination to be brought into the court room, then the Defendants' counsel gets to show the jury how many ways the Plaintiff betrayed the Board's trust, lied and misrepresented facts and information to the Board and the very people who employed her (meaning the parents, voters and taxpayers of SAD 63 and maybe CSD 8). Is the Plaintiff so sure that there won't be members of the jury who won't see through her and her lawsuit the same way Judge Kravchuk and the Maine Supreme Court justices did and those of us who have been following this case? Pretty risky for the Plaintiff, too, this writer thinks.
As far as Saturday's mediation went, there was no conclusion I guess. Maybe the Plaintiff came down a bit. Maybe the Board offered something. I'm sure it wasn't anywhere what the Plaintiff and her attorneys wanted. Who knows where the insurance company ended up. Hopefully the insurance company will see that the money spent to date has been a good investment for future similar situations. Hopefully the insurance company will see that the Board has got to stick to its guns and see this thing through. To do otherwise is to encourage another mess just like this one, where the wrong person will be hired some day (somewhere) and when caught doing the wrong thing he/she will just initiate a lawsuit in the hopes of getting some kind of settlement instead of punishment.
Of course, just because a settlement isn't reached this time doesn't meant Judge Jabar (Penobscot Superior Court) won't schedule that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that came up in the last appearance in that court (mentioned in a previous posting). If that happens, Saturday's experience may just turn out to have been a good exercise - a trial run for both parties.
Freedom isn't free. And neither is Justice (or doing the right thing). And they're both exhausting.
Because the school district carried an insurance policy ,which came into play once the Board found itself in the position of having to defend itself in this matter, the insurance company urged Mediation be considered at this time (even though the School Board has been successful in the U.S. Federal District Court and, in the writer's opinion, will be successful in the Maine Supreme Court - information which can be found in previous postings on this blog).
It should be noted that the insurance company has been paying out more than the original policy required and that those payments have been for the Board's legal representation. However, even with those payments, the Board has still incurred legal costs which still need to be paid by the voters/taxpayers of Eddington, Clifton and Holden. The longer the case goes on, the more these legal costs will add up - and that does not include the cost of any settlement, should there be one. It is not known if the insurance company will even participate in sharing the burden of any such settlement, should there be one.
So why would the insurance company be pushing SAD 63 and Ms. Regan to enter into Mediation, knowing that (to this point) SAD 63 has been doing quite well? An insurance company is a business. And like any business, they have to produce a year-end Profit and Loss statement. Any outstanding legal case is an open-ended unknown. It gets listed as a footnote in the "Loss" column. Having the case open-ended makes it worse. Getting the case resolved, is better because seeing the final cost of the "loss" is better than not knowing how much more the company is going to "lose" from its profits.
If SAD 63 had filed a cross-complaint against the Plaintiff (Regan), it might have been able to recover costs (which could then reimburse the insurance company). It has tried to recover the costs associated with the case filed in U.S. Federal District Court but that is currently on appeal.
However, the insurance company has spent a lot of money to cover SAD 63's legal fees - more than we expected initially considering the size of the policy. But, as good as the legal services have been - and they have been excellent in this writer's opinion, those costs have been a "loss" as far as the insurance company is concerned (financially speaking). Therefore, it is in the insurance company's best interest to end this matter as soon as possible - to stop the outflow of money (what the insurance company sees as their money).
The other side of the coin is this: We, the voters/taxpayers of Eddington, Clifton and Holden see it as our money that is also paying the bill for the legal services, and it will our money that will be paying at least some, if not all of any settlement costs - not to mention how we may feel about paying anything at all to someone we believe doesn't deserve to be rewarded for doing numerous acts that were not only wrong but betrayed the public trust (of her position). This does not appear to be of significant consequence to the insurance company. The insurance company seems to be more interested in getting this matter closed and "off the books."
And so the Mediation Meeting was scheduled. And it ran all day - beginning early Saturday morning and ran until the evening hours. The Mediator was an attorney who is experienced in these matters. By a flip of the coin, he met first with Ms. Regan and her traditional team (always the team) of attorneys. After some period of time, the Mediator then moved to the room where most of the current SAD 63 Board were in attendance (two being absent because of work schedules) in addition to those individuals who are being individually sued and are no longer on the Board.
The insurance company representative was initially in a third room but at some point may have joined the Board members.
Because the discussions were all done in "Executive Session", specifics of how the Mediation went are unknown. However, having been in mediations in the past, I can provide some general ideas and, having watched the legal representatives of this case in court it is not too difficult to imagine certain aspects of the proceedings.
So, if you will...
The Mediator would have listened to Ms. Regan's attorney spell out all of her claims and justifications of "irreparable harm" done to her by the alleged actions of the Board (including the Board's investigation - since he likes to bring that up every chance he can) and how that has damaged her professionally, emotionally and in every other way he could throw out - all of which adds up to (and in their opinion justifies) an extraordinary settlement fee (meaning high - I would expect something in the neighborhood of $1,000,000) as well as her legal costs which I am sure are equally extraordinary (meaning high - I would expect well over $150,000).
In light of the fact that Ms. Regan's annual salary was $91,000 as joint superintendent for SAD 63 and Airline CSD 8 before she was terminated by SAD 63, plus significant benefits, paid time off and additional financial fees and bonuses, it is unlikely she would obtain similar employment in the future. Particularly with the history of having been discharged under the current circumstances. It is reasonable that these will be added to reasons why the settlement should be high - from Ms. Regan's perspective.
As has been noted in previous postings relating to court hearings, Ms. Regan's attorneys always appear in no less than twos which allows for plenty of billable hours. And the charges in this case have been added gradually which also provides for plenty of billable hours (see previous postings). So it is understandable her legal counsel will try to collect a hefty fee. Remember, it is his business to make money here, too. (Of course, in most cases of this nature, the legal counsel receives one-third of the total settlement. So, at some point Ms. Regan's counsel may magnanimously offer to "reduce" his fees in exchange for the Board accepting some dollar figure for Ms. Regan's "settlement" fee. But, I would guess that legal counsel will take a goodly portion of Ms. Regan's settlement in addition to any attorneys' fee he may also negotiate.)
While making his presentation to the Mediator, it is also reasonable to believe that Ms. Regan's counsel provided quite a dramatic flair. It is his nature, as documented by his presentation at the U.S. Federal District Court before Justice Kravchuk. He did try at the U.S. Supreme Court but the Justices didn't seem to be interested in allowing him time for the "show."
So then the Mediator - after giving enough time to get the picture - and obtaining as much "evidence" as he felt he needed - would then have met with the Board (who are the Defendants). Perhaps his first step would have been to tell the Board how much money the Plaintiff (Ms. Regan) thought was a reasonable settlement or what she was willing to drop her lawsuit in exchange for receiving (meaning how much money would make her lawsuit against them go away). OR the Mediator might have asked the Board what their position was - against the Plaintiff.
I'm inclined to think the Mediator would just have hit the Board straight off with how much the Plaintiff wanted ($$$). And then, because I think the amount is/was outrageously high (based strictly on my impression of the Plaintiff's legal counsel's performance in two court hearings), I expect - certainly hope - the Board was shocked and righteously indignant and said "No Way!"
And then the "negotiations" would have gotten under way. Back and forth - all day long. Many times back and forth - each side (maybe) giving and taking a bit (maybe). You have to have empathy for the Mediator in this type of a situation. as tired as everyone else probably way at the end of the day, the mediator must have been exhausted! I hope he was well paid - and by the insurance company!!
Somewhere along the way, I expect somebody would have said/suggested that if the case goes to trial (projected to be sometime in April) and if it is a jury trial, which is what the Plaintiff is asking for, there is a possibility that members of the jury (human beings) might be sympathetic to the Plaintiff and award her big bucks...so maybe it would be better to settle now and avoid that possibility. (Do we hear Threats of the unknown and Feeding on Fears here? It always happens. Do you want Door #1 or Door #2 - The Lady or The Tiger. Remember that story?)
On the other hand, and I can only hope members of the Board thought and said something like the following:
1. Did we do the right thing?
2. Did we follow proper state law procedure?
3. Do/Did we have documentation - proof - evidence that supported our decision/decisions?
4. If we did, why would we want to settle before the Commissioner of Education holds the hearing state law requires her to hold to review what the Board did (the termination) and which is why we went to the Maine Supreme Court to force the Commissioner to do?
5. IF the termination (process and consequence) was valid, then don't most of the Plaintiff's claims go away by the very fact that the Board was right and correct in its actions AND THEREFORE the Board has nothing for which to compensate the Plaintiff (meaning no money to award her - no settlement - no compensation due)?
6. IF the bulk of her claims/issues become moot (nothing - not valid) because of a hearing before the Commissioner, then the Board's legal counsel can argue before the Superior Court judge (if the Plaintiff insists on going forward with the rest of her issues/claims) that everything that the Commissioner has ruled on cannot be entered into evidence in the courtroom because it is not relevant (since the Board has been found to have acted within state law).
That way, the Plaintiff does not get to argue her termination all over again and that reduces the chance of the Plaintiff playing on the emotions of the members of the jury.
BUT, if the judge allows the termination to be brought into the court room, then the Defendants' counsel gets to show the jury how many ways the Plaintiff betrayed the Board's trust, lied and misrepresented facts and information to the Board and the very people who employed her (meaning the parents, voters and taxpayers of SAD 63 and maybe CSD 8). Is the Plaintiff so sure that there won't be members of the jury who won't see through her and her lawsuit the same way Judge Kravchuk and the Maine Supreme Court justices did and those of us who have been following this case? Pretty risky for the Plaintiff, too, this writer thinks.
As far as Saturday's mediation went, there was no conclusion I guess. Maybe the Plaintiff came down a bit. Maybe the Board offered something. I'm sure it wasn't anywhere what the Plaintiff and her attorneys wanted. Who knows where the insurance company ended up. Hopefully the insurance company will see that the money spent to date has been a good investment for future similar situations. Hopefully the insurance company will see that the Board has got to stick to its guns and see this thing through. To do otherwise is to encourage another mess just like this one, where the wrong person will be hired some day (somewhere) and when caught doing the wrong thing he/she will just initiate a lawsuit in the hopes of getting some kind of settlement instead of punishment.
Of course, just because a settlement isn't reached this time doesn't meant Judge Jabar (Penobscot Superior Court) won't schedule that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that came up in the last appearance in that court (mentioned in a previous posting). If that happens, Saturday's experience may just turn out to have been a good exercise - a trial run for both parties.
Freedom isn't free. And neither is Justice (or doing the right thing). And they're both exhausting.
CLEWLEY FARM ENTERTAINMENT SCHEDULE
It's been a while since I posted anything for the Clewley Farm Restaurant BUT the coming weekends will have plenty of entertainment for folks looking for something to do other than decorating the house and yard for the upcoming holidays.
And there's always plenty of food at the Full Buffet that accompanies the weekend shows.
This coming Saturday Night - the 21st - will be "Hunter's Orange Night" with Dola and Company at 7:00PM. There will be a Harvest Fest full buffet from 4:00pm - 8:00pm with the price of $12.95 per person at the door.
Saturday, November the 28th will feature the Fahey Sisters at 7:00PM. Again, there will be a full buffet from 4:00 - 8:00pm with the price of $12.95 per person at the door.
In December, it will be Christmas with Woody Woodman & Band on December 12 at 7:00PM. Again, there will be the full buffet from 4:00pm - 8:00pm with the price of $12.95 per person at the door.
To Ring in the New Year, December 31, Dola & Company will entertain at 7:00pm with a Special Buffet for Clewley Farm and Friends.
(And if we're lucky, there won't be any snow to plow to get there or home.) :-)
And there's always plenty of food at the Full Buffet that accompanies the weekend shows.
This coming Saturday Night - the 21st - will be "Hunter's Orange Night" with Dola and Company at 7:00PM. There will be a Harvest Fest full buffet from 4:00pm - 8:00pm with the price of $12.95 per person at the door.
Saturday, November the 28th will feature the Fahey Sisters at 7:00PM. Again, there will be a full buffet from 4:00 - 8:00pm with the price of $12.95 per person at the door.
In December, it will be Christmas with Woody Woodman & Band on December 12 at 7:00PM. Again, there will be the full buffet from 4:00pm - 8:00pm with the price of $12.95 per person at the door.
To Ring in the New Year, December 31, Dola & Company will entertain at 7:00pm with a Special Buffet for Clewley Farm and Friends.
(And if we're lucky, there won't be any snow to plow to get there or home.) :-)
Friday, November 13, 2009
THE STATE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MAINE
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
