It was a small group that met last night at the Holbrook Middle School at 6pm. Chairman Mario Teisl (rep from Holden) and Therese Anderson (rep from Eddington) were in attendance. Sylvia Ellis (rep from Holden) was absent and no one seemed to know why. Board Chairman, Don Varnum, Interim Superintendent, Ray Hart, and Business Manager, Yvonne Mitchell, were also present. This writer was the only member from the public in attendance.
A Financial Statement was passed out among those at the table. This writer did not receive one. I believe I heard comments to the effect that the September Financial Statement would be in Board members packet for the October Board meeting.
There was no indication that the format of the Financial Statement has been changed in any of the ways requested at the Public Hearing last May which would show comparison spending in line items for the current fiscal year to the previous year.
The group scheduled Board meetings through the last meeting in June (the 28th) which they all seemed to believe it would be the LAST SAD 63 School Board meeting, the inference (perhaps) being perhaps because of consolidation.
Mr. Hart pointed out it would be HIS last, presumably because it will be the conclusion of his contract.
Several minutes were spent when committee members worked to rearrange their committee meeting dates for the rest of the year, working up through April 2010 when they expect financial business to become a bit crunched because of (1) end of the fiscal year and (2) the possible consolidation with other districts. That generated various topics of conversation which this writer found of particular interest regarding the issue of consolidation.
Therese Anderson did most of the "information sharing" although Mr. Hart shared quite a bit of opinion sharing. The following is what I overheard from my position in the "audience."
(NOTE: I am paraphrasing here. I did not tape record this meeting.)
Anderson indicated there has been some response to Varnum's letters of inquiry (regarding whether the following towns wanted to start meetings to develop an RSU plan). Anderson stated she found it surprising that Orrington and Dedham don't want to meet until after the November vote. Anderson thought that having a potential RSU plan ready, or in the process of development would be better if started before November considering all that would be needed. [There was no mention of Otis, even though that town has indicated it would like to be a part of any RSU development with SAD 63.]
Hart stated he thought all that would be needed for any new RSU plan would be to take the "old" RSU plan and cross out all references to Brewer. (!)
Hart also pointed out that the Commissioner of Education is trying to get the Legislature to approve a revision of what would qualify as an approved RSU with student populations as low as 1,000 students, instead of the original requirement of 2,500. Since SAD 63 now appears to have close to 900 students, perhaps SAD 63 could qualify if it just consolidated with Dedham.....
(NOTE: But of course, until the Legislature makes up its mind on what constitutes an "approved RSU", who knows which way to jump?)
Anderson pointed out that one of the sticking points of the "old" plan was the local advisory boards. Some of the small towns like Clifton and some contingents in Eddington wanted the local advisory board, even if only to have a relationship with their rep on the RSU Board. Also there was the idea (in the old plan) that the local advisory board could raise additional money for their local school if there was an interest and the RSU budget hadn't funded as much as the local advisory board felt was needed.
Hart said that the local advisory boards had no authority and they were going to be eliminated...that where he lived the people who had wanted that idea had been told "no."
There was discussion as to what would happen state-wide if consolidation was voted down and those new RSUs decided to "divorce". It was also felt that if consolidation between SAD 63, Orrington and Dedham was agreed upon, each district would need to have a developed budget for 2010/2011 and then the three districts' business manager or bookkeeper would need to get together and form a co-ordinated budget. (!)
(NOTE: This writer wonders how any of the voters are expected to vote on such a plan - any plan? It appears Mr. Hart expects/assumes the voters of Eddington, Clifton and Holden will just go along with whatever the School Board puts in front of us - including the unknown costs of such a plan before any of the details or costs are known - under the threat of the State's penalty. We didn't do that the last time. Why would we a second time, especially when the last time people were generous with their suspicions of Orrington? And what about the details re: proportionate representation on the RSU Board, teacher contracts (and none have been initiated with the teachers in SAD 63), costs of school maintenance, and all the other issues that were raised the last time and haven't even been opened as of yet? And then there are presentations to the voters and the voting....)
(NOTE: #1.It is this writer's understanding that IF the November vote goes in the direction that consolidation stands, those districts that will need to consolidate will only have until January 2010 to file their voter approved plans with the Commissioner of Education for state approval. AND, the new RSUs will need to be prepared to go into effect July 1, 2010.
#2. No mention was made of the small community of Otis which has asked to be included in any RSU with SAD 63. Did they answer the letter of inquiry? What do they want to do? They voted not to consolidate with Ellsworth, so they do appear to still be looking for a district.)
At that point, Committee Chair, Mario Teisl, passed out a three-page document I had provided him (six copies).
The document is the result of a close review of the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit which was completed in early July 2009. It was produced as a result of the work of five individuals - four from Eddington and one from Clifton. We obtained the audit document in July and reviewed it carefully. After individual and collective review (two group meetings), there remained a list of questions we couldn't answer and also certain general suggestions.
It seemed appropriate that the Budget and Finance Committee review the document before passing it on to the full Board, in the hopes that answers could be provided by the end of November. Mario was very cordial when I gave him the document.
However.... Mr. Hart made several comments I think worthy of reporting.
Mr. Hart appeared to be offended that a group of citizens should take it upon themselves to review a District's Audit Report. He stated that the Board was an elected quasi-governmental body and did not need to answer to a citizens group. As an employee of the School Board, his tone was "interesting" to say the least.
(NOTE: I don't know about your feelings/thoughts, readers, but I think those people who are elected by the people are certainly required to answer to the people, especially to the people who elected them. Even more, I think the people who are employed by those elected by the people are answerable to the people who pay their salary. It's called "accountable government.")
This writer is a citizen and one of the people in the group of five who reviewed the Audit Report in question and participated in the development of the document delivered to Mr. Teisl. I had no problem pointing out to Mr. Hart that it is the citizens, voters, and taxpayers who provide the money who pay for the school district and they have every right to review and question how their money is being spent. And we have the right to ask the questions posed in the document and to expect answers. Additionally, some of the issues at the end of the document were raised at the Public Hearing on the School Budget last May and which voters stated they wanted to see as changes in the way the proposed school budget was presented.
At this point Mr. Hart was silent.
Mario pointed out that some of the questions appeared to related to the ongoing lawsuit and might involve privileged information which the Board might not be able to provide. I said, if that were the case, it was understandable they might not be able to answer the question as long as that is given as the reason.
Ms. Mitchell stated it might be sometime in November before she could provide the answers since she is scheduled for two weeks vacation in October.
At that point the meeting was adjourned - at approximately 6:40pm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment