SAD 63 BOAD MEETING LAST NIGHT - NEWS!

Maybe the headline should be "When you least expect it" - but some things I have learned (from experience) to expect. I'll just say that some things were better than usual and some things were, well, usual.

First, the attendees: Seated from left to right: Mario Teisl (rep from Holden), Karen Clark (rep from Eddington), Ray Hart (Interim Superintendent), Don Varnum, Chair (rep from Holden), Therese Anderson (rep from Eddington), Pam Dorr (rep from Eddington), and Kevin Mills (rep from Holden). Both Sylvia Mills (rep from Holden) and Chris Fickett (rep from Clifton) were absent which is why the Operations sub-committee meeting, usually scheduled before the regular School Board meeting, was cancelled. Ms. Ellis is the Chair of that sub-committee.

Having reviewed the Agenda in advance of the beginning of the meeting and seeing nothing reporting any discussion of an RSU committee or prep work being done on that subject, this writer raised the subject during the first "Questions and Comments from the Public" opportunity on the Agenda, making reference to the discussion re: the subject made at the Budget and Finance Sub-committee meeting earlier in the month. (See earlier blog posting for details). I prefaced my remarks with the remarks "if I heard correctly (at that meeting) neither Dedham and Orrington want to meet until after the November 3 vote." Hearing no disagreement with my understanding, I proceeded to state that IF Question 3 (to repeal forced school consolidation) is not passed, that would leave SAD 63 with only about 6 weeks to formulate a consolidation plan, present it to the voters, conduct a vote, and (if passed) submit the plan BY some date in JANUARY to the Commissioner of Education in Augusta.

At that point I asked if there was anything the SAD 63 Board was doing in way of preparing any kind of ground work, even without Dedham and Orrington, should that need come to pass since that was a lot of work for such a short amount of time? I also pointed out that Mr. Hart's previous comments that all that would be needed was to take the old RSU plan (to consolidate with Brewer) and just cross out Brewer's name would NOT be sufficient. At least I did not believe it would be sufficient for many of the voters in Eddington and Clifton.

I wish I could say that there was some meaningful response from Chairman Varnum. (No one else said a peep.) There wasn't. If it is possible for someone to be speaking and to say nothing, that was his response.

Then, when I pointed out that if Orrington was surveying their own voters as to what they would want should there be some kind of consolidation, why couldn't the SAD 63 Board do the same with SAD 63 voters? They certainly would have access to the voters/taxpayers in the three towns of Eddington/Clifton/Holden. At that point Chairman Varnum said there wasn't enough time before the November 3 vote. (But there has been plenty of time in the past several months since the new Board took office and Chairman Varnum has failed to name/activate an RSU committee.)

It was not until later in the meeting, when Mr. Hart gave the Superintendent's report, I first heard of the SAD 63's plan to form a "tri-city Supervisory Union" with a central office. As to whether or not this would be if Q. 3 passes or fails was unclear to this writer. It all sounded very much like a conversation that has been going on "behind closed doors" and I'm not sure who has been behind those doors.

Chairman Varnum did say that if Q.3 fails and consolidation is required, an RSU committee of some sort (and with whom is not known - Dedham, Orrington, and Otis was not mentioned again last night) would need to be formed. Varnum did say that Kevin Mills from Holden, Karen Clark from Eddington and Chris Fickett from Clifton (with Karen as the alternate for Clifton if Chris was not in attendance) would represent the Board on such a committee. There would also need to be a Selectperson on the committee from each town. AND there would need to be a citizen from each town on the committee.

It was either Varnum or Hart who said that they wanted to submit a Letter of Intent for whatever plan SAD 63 decides to go with (consolidating with some other town or the "Supervisory Union") to the Commissioner of Education first to be sure it would be accepted before the committee goes down the path to do the work. At that point, Chairman Varnum acknowledged, with a nod in my direction, that there would be a LOT of work to do and a bureaucratic process takes time. (Gee, for a moment I thought I was hearing an echo from the last several months.)

However, I heard remarks from Mr. Hart re: this "supervisory union" that there would need to be some kind of lawyer involved to make it a "legal union" between the three towns. Of course that costs money and I wondered why would we need to incur such costs to create something that is going to end up being pretty much what we already have? Just to appease the powers that be in Augusta that are trying to say we have to be something we already are only a different name so that the those powers can say they won some kind of political battle? Maybe we need to have a "sit down" with Representative Ben Pratt and Senator Richard Rosen while they're home here in Eddington and Bangor. Because spending money unnecessarily only sounds like Augusta. And just another reason to think about Q. 4 in my book.

Hart pointed out whatever group was meeting or is formed will have to (1) be doing a Superintendent search and (2) conducting teacher contract negotiations (since the current contract is due to expire this coming Fall). Presumably this would be done AFTER January 2010. I submit that group has a third task - the search for a new Business Manager since the current B.M.'s contract also expires June 30, 2010 and that search should begin by March of 2010.

I did obtain a copy of the Financial Statement of Operations from Mario Teisl, Chair of the Budget and Finance Sub-Committee. It is "For the Three Months Ending September 30, 2009".

According to Mr. Hart, the 2008-2009 audit is scheduled to go out the second week in November.

Mr. Hart pointed out that he is hearing (from Augusta) that the state budget's deficit situation looks to be an additional $94 million which should result in an additional curtailment to various programs this year (regardless of the signed 2010-2011 budget). Mr. Hart doesn't believe either the Legislature or the Governor will address this issue until the Legislature comes back into session in January 2010. He stated that IF the high school tuition for our students attending Brewer High School doesn't go up (higher than the SAD 63 planned budget) SAD 63 should OK. However, comments made at various points through the rest of the Board meeting indicated the Budget and Finance sub-committee will be looking closely at reducing any spending for the rest of this fiscal year in anticipation of state funding cuts later on in this fiscal year.

As to Q.3, Karen Clark remarked that during her attendance at the MSMA Annual Fall Conference in Augusta last week, she attended one session where there was a discussion with representatives from some newly organized RSU schools and their remarks indicated their schools were not happy with the consolidation. There had also been a speaker from a legal firm, named Drummond, who has stated that if consolidation was repealed, the newly formed RSU components WOULD be able to pull out. I thought this was important information even though we are certainly NOT hearing this from the state.

News re: the Lawsuit.

On Monday, November 9 - The Maine Supreme Court in Portland will be hearing Oral Arguments at 2:15pm as to why (or why not) the Commissioner of Education should (be required) to hear SAD 63's reasons for terminating the employment of former superintendent Louise Regan - or conversely, the case of Louise Regan v. SAD 63 et al. This is very good news and we hope to succeed.

What's going to happen: SAD 63's attorney will be arguing before the Maine Supreme Court that Regan should be required to take her case (and therefore most of her issues) to the Commissioner before she can take them to the courts since the basis of her entire case is her termination of employment and that she has not utilized her administrative remedies and has lost her arguments in U.S. District Court (that she was a victim of discrimination under various civil rights laws). As such she has placed an exhaustive burden on the taxpayers by not using her administrative remedies before going to the courts.

Interestingly, (if I understood this correctly), the opposing counsel to our attorney will be someone from the Maine Attorney General's office. If I am correct here, it means that the Commissioner's Office is arguing that she should not hear the case. (State Departments are traditionally represented by the state's Attorney General.)

Of course I will be going to Portland and will be in attendance. And you will be able to read my report on my blog later that night (or first thing the following morning depending on how late I write or how early you check your computer.) :-)

So then we got to the "Say What?" part of the Agenda.

I am going to preface this by letting you in on something I knew before I went to the meeting (because I had not seen an advance copy of the Agenda). Clifton's Vice Chair Penny Peasley had seen the agenda in advance because both Eddington and Clifton town offices receive the agendas in advance of the School Board meetings. The Agenda listed, under Old Business, the Holden Town Deed/Land Transfer. Vice Chair Peasley wanted to be sure the School Board was only going to be dealing with the transferring of that small portion of land containing the Veteran's Memorial and the gazebo, which had been agreed to at the September 23 School Board meeting. (Refer to those blog postings and all that brew-ha-ha if you are unfamiliar with the "situation.) In particular, Vice Chair Peasley was to be sure the School Board was to be sure the School Board was not going to vote on the second parcel of land relating to the Nature Trails and access points because no one from Clifton has been informed or involved with that discussion since the September School Board meeting.

Vice Chair Peasley called School Board Chair Don Varnum on Friday, October 23 and discussed this matter with him. Varnum assured Peasley the School Board would not be voting on the second parcel of land at the School Board meeting last night. He told her the School Board would only be finalizing the transference of the parcel containing the Veterans memorial.

So now, back to last night's Board meeting.

Mr. Hart directed the Board members to a new surveyor's map of the 12.14 acres in question, showing the corrected area being transferred to the Town of Holden which contains the Veterans Memorial and gazebo. It totals 1.13 acres. The Release Deed had been prepared and was ready for the Board's vote of approval for transfer. The vote was 6-0. Done deal.

The new surveyor's map ALSO showed numerous access entrances to the Nature Trails, including the handicapped access which is located near the Holden Fire House. Many of these entrances had been previously unknown to some of the Board members. The SAD 63 Operations Manager, Jake, did point out that land had been held (for the school district) for any future needs as operations could anticipate/identify. However, when looking at the new parcel in question, it appears to this writer to be much larger than was originally intended.

Jake did point out that any individual wanting to access the Nature Trails would have to cross school property to use one of the entrances.

The area previously agreed not to be transferred to the Town of Holden, the ball field and its surrounding ground, appeared to this writer, to be much smaller under this new rendering.

Chairman Varnum proceeded to try to have the Board vote on the transfer of this second parcel of land to the Town of Holden.

It was only because Board member and Vice Chair Therese Anderson, rep from Eddington, spoke up that Varnum was stopped in this action. Anderson pointed out several problems. She asked Varnum if anyone from the towns of Eddington and Clifton had seen the new maps or had been involved in any drafting of the Release Deed that would be attached to the transfer of that particular parcel. She pointed out that the previous discussions in September had been that the lands should be kept in Public Trust and, no disrespect toward Holden, the people holding public office change and new people might not have the same intent as those currently in office. Only the legal document attached to the transfer would insure the requirements the towns agreed to.

Varnum started to say the land belonged to the school and the Board had the authority to transfer it. (Where have we heard that before as though the land doesn't belong to the taxpayers who have paid for it all these years?) Karen Clark spoke up and reminded Varnum of the conversations that had taken place and the agreements made between the Board and the citizens and Selectmen in attendance at the September Board meeting. Varnum tried to read from the September minutes but Anderson wouldn't let that dissuade her from keeping him on point as to the issues at hand. (The "motion" Varnum was trying to use was not relevant to the discussion that had been between the Board and the people in attendance at the September meeting when it had been agreed that representatives from all three towns would be party to the drawing up of any final agreement document re: the parcel of land involving the Nature Trails.)

Pam Dorr then asked for some background on the issue since she had not been in attendance at the September Board meeting. At this point Hart was seeing the handwriting on the wall and suggested the issue be tabled until the November 30th meeting. All three towns' Selectmen will have advance copies of the surveyor's map and the agenda. (It would be good if someone can draft up some wording as well, if all three towns are still in agreement that that much land should be transferred from the school district...) Anderson pointed out that it would not be fair to the Town of Holden to incur the legal expense of having a Release Deed written up prior to all three towns agreeing on what the Release Deed should say, i.e., land to be held in Public Trust and never to be sold or built on, to be returned to the school district by whatever name it may have (since consolidation or whatever may change its name) free of charge should it be needed in the future, etc.

Needless to say, this issue should be on the agenda of all three towns' Boards of Selectmen in November, as well as attendance by members of those Boards at the November 30th School Board meeting at Holden at 6:30pm.

As to what you can believe or trust in making you think you don't need to be at a School Board meeting.... I'll let Vice Chair Peasley's experience be a reminder to you.

Bottom Line: No matter what kind of a school district or RSU we may end up with in the future, one thing we all need to insist on... the Chair position rotates every year between all towns represented in the district/union/whatever. Since every member of the Board is allowed and encouraged to vote (per the Maine School Board Management Association handbook, unlike Robert's Rules of Order), it is both unreasonable and disproportionate to have one town or person control a School Board that is supposed to act in the best interests of the education and taxpayers of all who support it.