First: There are few things in life where one size fits all. Initially I thought of the phrase, “The only things certain are death and taxes”. But taxes are not applied equally and not at all to some. So I’ve decided Death is probably thing where the rule applies. Everybody dies – eventually.
Second: I don’t like bullies, threats, lies and misrepresentations, and people in government who have forgotten Abraham Lincoln’s standard. (…Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.) You know, that one.
NOTE: It’s only fair to say there are other things I have accumulated through my journeys in life that I don’t particularly care for, but I’m laying the foundation here for the discussion about to follow regarding:
Question 3 – An Act to Repeal the School District Consolidation laws.
A bit of background is needed (and only a bit).
During the First Regular Session of the 123rd Legislature, our state government (the Legislature and the Governor) enacted laws mandating the reduction of the number of school administrative units (districts) in the state overall. Generally speaking, to qualify for one of the “new” Regional School Unions (RSUs) there needed to be 2,500 students per school superintendent. Some existing school districts were not affected at all because they already had 2,500 students - that standard under the new law (from pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade/high school).
Some school districts like SAD 63 (School Administrative District 63) -that includes Eddington,Clifton, and Holden - had approximately 750 students with approximately 150 of them of high school age. The high school students attend Brewer High, Bangor High or John Bapst High under contract (because SAD 63 does not have a high school).
However, SAD 63 does have its own superintendent and central office staff. Question: Under whose responsibility do those high school students come under - the SAD 63 superintendent of the superintendent of Bangor/Brewer/ or John Bapst? If not the SAD 63 superintendent, the scope of SAD 63 superintendent would have been 600. A lot of money was being paid for not that big a scope which was probably part of the state's issue.
Looking at the bigger picture: Throughout Maine there are several medium to large cities which have school districts which met the criteria of 2,500 students per superintendent. They were pretty much exempted from the new laws from the "get-go". However, in rural and coastal Maine there are many, many more small communities like SAD 63. And these communities had their own school districts, each with a school superintendent and administrative staff.
The State’s position was that by requiring more districts like SAD 63 to consolidate with other SADs under one administration (one superintendent and one central office) – to become new RSUs - school budgets would be reduced because school administrative costs would be reduced. Therefore, state costs for public education would be reduced.
And then the state (meaning the Legislature, the Governor, and the Commissioner of Education) said – as in “promised”, that the taxpayers within those new RSUs would not have their property taxes increased.
Now this next point may be “elemental” (translation: common knowledge), but it’s good to be clear about this so nothing is taken for granted.
When the projected year’s school budget is put forth each May during the Public Hearing (for instance here at the Holbrook Middle School) and then voted on in June at our Town Offices, that budget is based on the “expectation” of a certain number of dollars coming from the state government. The balance for SAD 63 comes from the taxpayers in our three towns. Each town is allocated its share based on the number of students in the school district from that town and some cock-eyed assessed property value the state has determined for that town. (Don’t ask me how the state determines the assessed value because I haven’t gotten an answer yet that I can understand. It all sounds like voodoo times the three witches of Macbeth brew to me, even on a good day.)
Back to the point. When we vote on this budget, the state has not committed to how much money it is really going to be contributing to that school budget. In fact, I can not find once in recent years when the state has actually followed through on their end of the budget. Not even when the voters of this state voted that the state will pay for 55 percent of the cost of education.
So – what is the value of this state government’s word when it says if the people make local changes, the state will do ??? at the state’s end that will guarantee local property taxes won’t increase. I think this is important when considering the value of consolidating any school districts.
The consolidation of state corrections with local corrections (county jails) carried the same promise. Didn’t work. State corrections have taken their fiscal problems out on local budgets that were fiscally sound. Now county jail operations are having to charge more to our communities for patrol services just to offset the deficits caused by the state corrections consolidation. And our property taxes have had to accommodate that increase (even though the Governor said consolidation of state corrections with county corrections would prevent property tax increases!). Just one example of the lack of state fiscal planning being laid on the back of the taxpayers and property owners.
Does one size fit all?
One of the requirements of RSU consolidation is giving up local control of our schools and school policies. When various existing districts have to try to find “partners” to consolidate with, new School Boards have to be formed with different formulae for town representation. The larger towns get more representation on the new Boards; the smaller towns get less. Some really small towns may get none (think Clifton). But ALL get to pay for the school budget. Even though there may be no input from the local towns regarding how the schools are run or where school budget monies may be spent. The loss of local input or control is a big issue for many of the rural, coastal and towns that have children traveling long distances to new schools, because the new Boards will have the complete authority to decide what schools to close – or sell off.
Maybe consolidation has or will or would work for some districts. Some districts have consolidated. Whether or not they would have if they had not felt threatened by the state's fiscal penalties for not consolidating by a certain date, I don't know.
- Karen Clark reported at Monday's School Board meeting that she heard some new RSU representatives at the MSMA Annual Conference last week state in a workshop they wish they had never formed an RSU.
- Obviously enough people are opposed to obtain the necessary signature to get this Question on the ballot. That should say something.
- Seems to me that if any existing SADs wants to pursue the issue, they will, even if not mandated to do so. But why should they be forced to do something they do not believe is in the best interest of their children or their community? Do we want our pre-K through 6th graders being bussed to a distant school on icy roads or during the winter months or pre-dawn hours just because it's a fiscal matter to the state when the state can't manage it's fiscal responsibilities in the first place?
- If consolidating was going to be so easy, why have so many districts not been able to find workable partners or plans? Why has there been such resistance? No longer are districts required to have 2,500 students. Now (apparently) 1,000 may suffice. Different strokes for different folks - or change the rules to force something that doesn't work to "fit" the state's needs even if it doesn't fit the needs of educating and protecting our children?
And that's all this law was about in the first place. Not about education. About the state's budget - which the state still can not manage.
Why did the voters in SAD 63 vote down consolidation with Brewer and Orrington last year?
After a lot of work by many people on the RSU committee spanning several months, there seemed to be four primary reasons why that particular consolidation plan failed.
- The proposed RSU Board was heavily weighted with Brewer positions. There was a sense of distrust of the Orrington influence within the communities of Eddington and Clifton (although I didn’t hear too much regarding that issue from individuals from Holden). Eddington and Clifton people felt they would be non-entities when it came to decisions affecting their own children and their taxes.
- The option of having Local Advisory groups, which would be able to at least communicate to the RSU Board regarding issues of local concern, was not going to be allowed. This only added to problem #1.
- The projected cost increase for the new RSU was $1.5 million higher than the current district. This was not a cost savings. Even the threat of the state’s “penalty” (withholding of state funds, projected at the time to be $157,000 divided between the three towns) was significantly less than the projected increased cost of the proposed consolidation.
- The voters felt pushed and threatened by the state to accept the consolidation. And they became angry.
Which takes me to my second Caveat, as listed above - things I don't like.
I have watched the brief television ads opposing the repeal of school consolidation. I expect they are all funded by the state. Who else would be funding them? State government that claims to be $92 million more in debt than it already was before it started cutting money for the 2010-2011 budget. (And is planning to cut even that budgeted allocation for this current school year's budget - see yesterday's report from the School Board meeting.) I haven't seen any ads FOR Q3 -Repeal of Consolidation. Probably because that campaign is a Grass Roots Campaign and doesn't have much money. It's being run by taxpayers like you and me, headed by Skip Greenlaw, a former legislator from Stonnington.
BUT, I have found the television ads most interesting - and misleading.
Communities were told a year ago that once they formed an RSU, they were in it forever. Couldn't get out. These past months, even SAD 63's Interim Superintendent said voters would continue consolidation because to do otherwise would penalize those new RSUs. WRONG.
The law firm of Drummond, Woodson & McMann, specialists in school law, spoke at the MSMA Annual Conference. They stated that repeal of consolidation will restore the laws that existed prior to the law requiring consolidation and that those RSU would be able to get out of those unions if they so chose. In fact, the recent newsletter from Senator Richard Rosen from District 31 affirms this fact. So now, the state says the only people to benefit from the repeal will be the attorneys working for those RSUs who want to dissolve the RSUs. Think about it. If the RSU is working, would the people want to disolve it? No. Those who will be initiating dissolution will be those who want to go back to the way they were before they were bullied by the state to lose what they had in the first place.
Some of the television ads infer that repeal of consolidation would cost more than $30 million dollars. They don't say to whom it would cost this money. (See above. Can't be state government. They don't pay their bills as it is.)
Several things are clear.
SAD 63 can not be the only school district that has experienced significant defaults in state funding in the last half of the school year, year after year through no fault of its own.
Local school districts can not depend on anything the state promises when it comes to funding.
When the state mandates anything regarding education that has everything to do with financial support it cannot fulfill and nothing to do with the quality of education it is not prepared to ensure, local control must be in maintained.
If we're going to be stuck with the bill anyway, let's make sure we not only like what we're paying for - let's make sure we have control over what the bill is for.
There are always bullies in the room. Unless we stand up to them and take back control of our lives, we lose. Inch by inch until we have lost our homes, our schools, our towns and states and country.
I don't believe what I hear in the television ads. A ten second blip is just a carrot in front of the jackass to make it jump. There is no information and no thinking involved. Jackasses have no right in the voting booth but that's all the information the ballot and the television ads provide. The voter needs to search for the background of information and then THINK.
I don't trust the promises of Maine state government when it says IF we do something (see the carrot?) it will protect any increases in our property taxes. Sorry.
I recently heard a report that said Maine's property taxes have increased something like 20 percent in the last ten? years. (I am looking for that report/source. It was a quick "blip" I overheard during an interview on MaineBiz, a Sunday news program on WLBZ last Sunday morning, I think.)
I do believe we, the voters/taxpayers and parents in our local towns HAVE to be more involved in the governance of our schools and local government. While I believe there are needed changes in what we currently have, and places where we can reduce current administrative costs, WE should be the ones to decide if and with whom any kind of consolidation would be good - and under what terms.
And we need to work out the terms we think will meet the best interests of our children as well as our communities. On our clock - not the state's clock.
For these reasons I will be voting YES ON QUESTION 3 - TO REPEAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION
These are my views. Make up your own mind. But most of all. Be informed. And VOTE November 3 and your Town Office if you have not already voted via an Absentee Ballot.
No comments:
Post a Comment