Monday, November 30, 2009

THIS WEEK'S IMPORTANT MEETINGS

Tonight is School Board meeting - Holbrook School @ 6:30.

Items on the agenda will include:

  1. 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.
  2. 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...)
  3. 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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
  • "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.

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.

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.) :-)

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.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

MORE IMPORTANT EDUCATION NEWS

Today I'll be at the noon luncheon in Bangor presented by the Maine Heritage Policy Center.

The speaker will be Steve Bowen, the director of the Center for Education Excellence at The Maine Heritage Policy Center. Mr. Bowen will update several education reform issues being discussed in Maine and review a few topics that are in the news this week, including a new National Report Card from the US Chamber, and efforts by some in the state legislature to scuttle the "Local Control" rights of the school budget validation process.

His topic: "School Reform in Maine: The Issues That Matter"

Please note that last (blue) highlighted topic. Yesterday I heard a member of the Maine Legislature has introduced a piece of legislation that would eliminate OUR (meaning local voters/taxpayers) right to vote on the annual proposed school budget. You can be sure I will be listening intently to whatever information I can garner this noontime regarding this - and will be reporting it here later this afternoon.

If you're interested in attending the luncheon, I'm told there are usually extra seats set aside for people who haven't made advance reservation.

The details:
DATE:
November 12, 2009 (today) TIME: 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. LOCATION: Sea Dog Brewing Company 26 Front Street Bangor, Maine Price: $15.00 per person.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

SCHOOL BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY NIGHT

It was tight getting to Holbrook School by 6:30 Monday night. I hadn't gotten back to Eddington from the Maine Supreme Court in Portland until 6:05 and needed to make a quick stop at the house before continuing on to the school. (If you want to know how the hearing in Portland went, read the posting just prior to this one.)


The entire School Board was in attendance in the room just past the Library on the second floor at the school. They all sat around the oval table , as well as Interim Superintendent Ray Hart.


The "public" in attendance included Pam Dorr's husband; the SAD 63's Business Manager, Yvonne Mitchell; and this writer.


As soon as the meeting was officially called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence were observed, the Board adjourned to the Superintendent's Office for an Executive Session during which the attorney for the district was going to brief the entire board via phone regarding the hearing in Portland that had occurred that afternoon.


When the Board returned, approximately 30 minutes later, the discussion focused on FINALLY setting up a planning committee to form an RSU. Board Chairman Don Varnum, rep from Holden, stated he had been trying to form an RSU Planning group since September (!!!) - no comment. - He stated since last Tuesday's vote he had received communications from Orrington and Dedham that those school districts were now wiling to sit down with SAD 63 to work out a plan for an RSU.


Varnum stated SAD 63 representatives to the planning group would be: Kevin Mills to represent Holden, Therese Anderson to represent Eddington, and Chris Fickett to represent Clifton. Alternates would be: Varnum for Holden, Karen Clark for Eddington and ??? for Clifton. The problem for appointing an alternate for Clifton is that any alternate must be an existing member of the School Board and Clifton only has one representative. The last time, Karen Clark was designated Alternate for all three towns. Unfortunately, the alternate designation must be made by Board vote and Varnum didn't take care of that piece of business at Monday's meeting.


Therese Anderson tried to get a date for the first meeting set - time and place as well - since Varnum said he was sending out letters of notice to the Town Managers/Boards of Selectmen of Holden, Eddington and Clifton this week. Each of those towns must, by law, designate a selectman and citizen from their town to sit on the planning group. It only stood to reason that if the date of the first group meeting could be included in Varnum's letter, things could get going without delay. (The same information needs to be sent to the Town Managers, Boards of Selectmen, and School Board Chairmen of Orrington, Dedham, etc.) Varnum let Anderson's urging go totally unacknowledged. Anderson then said that the first meeting should be held No Later Than DECEMBER 10. She also pointed out that, because of the shortness of time, planning group meetings may need to be conducted twice a week from that point on considering the pending holiday schedule. All assigned school board planning group reps and alternates stated they would be available.


Varnum had already drafted up a Letter of Intent to send to the Commissioner of Education indicating Orrington and Dedham as potential "partners" which he showed to the Board.


The question was raised as to whether CSD 8 (Airline) should also be invited to participate in the discussion. Varnum reminded the Board that Airline had had a large "team" on the old planning group (when the discussion included consolidating with Brewer). (Writer's note: Apparently Airline had walked away from the previous RSU planning group, going over to check out consolidating with Ellsworth. Then they returned to the SAD 63/Brewer talks and were less than happy then, as well. This time there was not enough time for indecisive behavior.) Then Varnum suggested maybe Airline could be limited to sending just 1 selectmen and 1 citizen to the planning group. Therese Anderson pointed out that the law stated that each town was supposed to send 1 selectman and 1 citizen as well as the school board sending 1 representative from each town that the current board included. (For Airline, that meant 12 people should be included in the planning group.) Varnum clearly said "well, maybe we can just ignore the law." (!) Anderson was visibly upset by Varnum's remark. She said the law clearly stated how the planning group was to be comprised and that Varnum couldn't just limit Airline's representation in that group. Again, Varnum said he thought they could forget the law. Fortunately Anderson stuck to her guns.


This writer has a significant concern that if there is not a watchful eye as to how the planning group works and doesn't pay attention to how the new RSU is formed through its Articles of Incorporation, individuals like Varnum will try to circumvent not only the laws but the rights and best interests of ALL PARTIES. This writer strongly believes the Articles of Incorporation should be clear in requiring that the Chair of the new RSU Board rotate yearly amongst the towns represented by the Board (and the Vice Chair be from a different town, with the Vice Chair one year to succeed to the position of Chair the following year).


There was no mention of the town of Otis being included in the planning group until Karen Clark, rep from Eddington, specifically raised the issue. Mr. Hart wasn't even aware of the geographical location of the town of Otis until it was explained to him by Anderson. Varnum said Otis would be sent an invitational letter to the planning group meeting. Hart said having Otis involved would be good because that might be beneficial to those students living at the far end of Clifton - that they might be able to attend the school in Otis (because it would be a shorter transportation distance). (!)


A suggestion was made that a possible clause could be added in the initial RSU agreement that no schools would be closed for the first three years to allow for the Board of settle in and people to adjust to the consolidation.


Hart seemed to think that Ms. Mitchell had most of the consolidation budget numbers ready (which was not the impression of some of the Board members). One wonders if that means we'll have another year of multiple months where the Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) doesn't receive monthly financial reports.....


It also appears that during the BFC meeting that preceded the Special Meeting of the Board, Mr. Hart stated the following financial status: There will be a SHORTFALL of $140,000 in the current 2009-2010 (presumably from the state). In fiscal year there will be a $340,000 SHORTFALL in addition to the penalty (if SAD 63 does not consolidate) of $167,000. So, of course there is that much more pressure (aka threat) to consolidate. You notice taxpayers were not provided with this financial information BEFORE voters were voting for/against TABOR last week. Do you find this a bit interesting???


The question did come up re: the teachers contract negotiations. Hart stated the Orrington teachers are paid at a lower rate than the SAD 63 teachers and that the leveling out of all rates might ease up (for Orrington) over three years. In the meantime, he suggested the SAD 63 teachers might have to go a year without a contract. Anderson pointed out that the SHORTFALL situation was going to make contract negotiation "ugly" for everyone. Interesting that no one seems to thinks that, from the taxpayer's point of view, it's been ugly for some time. This writer pointed out (at the Public Hearing re: the school budget last year) we were all warned that there would be another $90,000,000.00 SHORTFALL for education in 2011 and SAD 63 needed to stop thinking each year could be more expensive that the year before. WIth the exception of Karen Clark from Eddington, none of the Board and no one from Central Office wanted to hear that and turned a deaf ear. (I didn't have a crystal ball then. Sure don't need one now.) Don't suppose anyone wanted to hear that the SAD 63 budget went up $800,000 in the last two years either since people seldom attend the Public Hearing and the few "no" votes that were cast were from Eddington and Clifton.


BOTTOM LINE RE: THIS RSU PLANNING GROUP: Towns need to get their teams ready - and start pushing Varnum for a date, time and place for the RSU planning meeting - for the first week in December. According to Hart, voters/taxpayers need to do their official and final VOTE by mid-February at the latest.


Between now and then this is what needs to happen:


1. Each town needs to assign its Selectman and citizen to the planning group (and alternates);


2. Each School Board needs to designate each town's Board representative (and alternate);


3. The Planning Group needs to formulate how the RSU would work (budget, central office staffing, each town's student population and designated school with related systems and services), etc.;


4. Prepare public presentations to be made in each town to explain how the RSU would work and related costs (projected town assessments and any contingencies agreed upon by the group - PLUS whatever has already been approved by the Commissioner of Education);


5. Make public presentations (which will require promotion and support from local Boards of Selectmen to encourage public attendance);


6. Group "tweeking" of any high negative issues raised at/from presentations which might prevent voter approval;


7. Town Voting (mid-February);


8. Candidate declarations for new RSU Board seats; (two weeks after voting)


9. New Candidate elections; (?? after declarations)


10. New RSU ready to go by July 1, 2010


There is certainly not very much time between now and mid-February - and there is one heck of a lot of work to do in steps 1-9.

Monday, November 9, 2009

SAD63 AT THE MAINE SUPREME COURT

It is rather impressive, being in a state's SUPREME COURT hearing. This was not like any other court room, and I've been in quite a few, including the United States Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court is above the norm. And the Maine Supreme Court is definitely larger than the U.S. District court room in the Bangor Federal Courthouse. By four or five times in size. The ceiling is probably thirty feet high - no fooling. And it is a "tray ceiling". If you're not into architecture (or an HGTV addict) a Tray Ceiling is a three-dimensional, upside-down tray with the inner section higher in the middle and then an outer frame set down a bit lower and then a third frame that is lower still.

The ceiling in the Maine Supreme Court room is, I believe - I didn't count - three large trays across in width and at least five deep (maybe more deep) in length. The inner most section of each tray is the lightest gray with each succeeding frame a shade darker. Between the trays are large gold leaf rosettes. The outer frames of each tray have gold leaf "X"s - maybe three across each side. The corners of the middle rim are gold leaf and the design on the outer rim is a carved "dental" design.

There are four very large, old fashioned, black ornate chandeliers - each of which contains at least four milk glass lights (one bulb was out) and several smaller bulbs. Each chandelier hangs by a very long black chain from the ceiling. Although four small, white fans have been installed in the ceiling near the front of the court room, near the area where the six Justices sit, the fans are not obvious and do not interfere with the original design.

As we entered the room from the rear left, I could easily observe the entire room which clearly shows its history. The far right wall contains windows high up on the wall, all of which were tilted open at the top. Below the windows were several dark (black) wooden benches where I soon realized young male and female attorneys were sitting in, observing the cases being heard during the course of the day. They didn't appear to be affiliated with any of the cases being heard while I was there or the case being heard immediately before the SAD63 case.

At the back of the room, where I would soon find myself sitting, were several old-fashioned black wooden benches, their seats and arm rests well worn over time - the black paint worn through to the natural wood. The style could easily indicate a time from that of President James Monroe at least. Directly in front of these benches, their backs pressed against the railing separating our section from the center of the room were several old, deep red, leather chairs with ornate knobs at the top of the back on each side. One can easily imagine them having been there for years and years. There is history in this room documented by the furnishing alone.

To the far left, next to the door where we had entered, sat a gentleman I believe to have been the court bailiff, perhaps although his "uniform" was a dark blue blazer with a crest on the pocket rather than a peace officer's uniform. Further along the side were benches similar to those on the opposite wall where the young attorneys sat; however these benches were vacant.

In the absolute center of the room were four relatively small desks with two chair each. Two desks were directly in front of the Justices bench, with a podium between, and the other two desks were located behind the first two. Imagine two rows of two desks each.

Directly in front of the podium - stretching from one side to the other - was a narrow area in which two young court clerks presided - separated from the attorneys by a deep railing that appeared to extend from floor to waist. Behind this area was THE RAISED BENCH AND SIX BLACK LEATHER CHAIRS. This was The Maine Supreme Court. It should be noted here that there was two doors behind the Justices chairs, one on either side on the center chair and a large ornate clock high on the wall above the center chair (which, by the way, has not been turned back to reflect daylight savings time).

When we first arrived, about 1:30pm, those of us there for the SAD63 oral arguments, we congregated outside Department 12, second floor, waiting for the case preceding SAD63's to conclude, not wanting to be disruptive. When that case concluded - the clue hearing "All Rise", we entered.

Those in attendance representing SAD63 were Bryon Densch, primary attorney, and Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Malloy from the firm of Skelton, Taintor & Abbot. It should be noted only Mr. Densch sat at the front right table and spoke on behalf for SAD 63. Also in attendance to listen to the arguments (and be of moral support, I suppose) were Mrs. Densch, School Board Chairman Don Varnum, School Board Member Karen Clark, and this writer.

Representing the Commission of Education was Sarah Forster, Assistant Attorney General from the Maine State Office of the Attorney General. She sat at the front desk to the left of the podium.

Representing former school superintendent Louise Regan was her legal counsel, Thad Zmistowski from the firm of Eaton Peabody who was accompanied by his loyal sidekick. The two of them sat at the desk in the second row, directly behind Ms. Forster.

Our case was scheduled to begin at 2:15pm. At 2:25 we heard, boldly proclaimed, "All Rise." And everyone in the courtroom stood as the two doors opened behind the Justices chairs and the six Maine Supreme Court Justices entered - three from one door and three from the other. There was no drum roll and yet, it was impressive in a way different than most courtrooms.

From left to right, they took their seats: Gordon, Miller, Alexander, Saufley, Levy, and Mead. Earlier when observing the ceiling and benches, I had looked at the oil portraits hanging high up on three of the walls. Nineteen men - and one woman. From their appearances and attire, it was easy to see some of them lived many years ago. The one woman appeared to be from a recent era. They were all attired in judicial garb. Chief Justices perhaps. And now I was looking at two women justices, one of whom was The Chief Justice. Considering my professional career and it's hurdles, I must admit to a moment of personal pleasure.

And so IT began.

The Chief Justice asked all three attorneys who planned to address the Court to come before the podium and give their names and the party they were representing (for the record). And each did. Then Mr. Densch addressed the Court first (because SAD 63 was the party who had filed the Appeal to be heard before the Court).

Then Ms. Forster spoke in response.

Then Mr. Zmistowski spoke as to Ms. Regan's position (as presented/developed by her counsel).

Then Mr. Densch was given the opportunity to provide a final rebuttal or argument to what had been presented by Mr. Forster and Mr. Zmistowski following Mr. Densch's initial presentation.

For the sake of brevity and syntax, this writer will simply provide an overview of the oral arguments presented, the key points raised by the Justices and what this writer believed to be the inclinations of the Justices by the time the Oral Arguments were concluded. Again, the following is only based on my observations.

At Issue: Title 20-A M.R.S. (Section) 1052(3) states that the Superintendent (Regan) may appeal a school board's decision (SAD 63's decision to terminate Regan's contract) to the Commissioner and that the commission SHALL hold a hearing as part of the appeal. [NOTE: the word "shall" is a mandate. If the law used the word "may", the law would mean there was an option as to whether or not the Commissioner would hold a hearing. That also means the Commissioner would have complete discretion as to whether or not to hold a hearing. When the law says shall, as in this law, the only discretion appears to be when the Commissioner is to hold the hearing, such as within a certain time frame following receipt from a request to do so. The operative word in the law here is SHALL.]

Title 20-A M.R.S (Section) 1052(3) states that the Superintendent may appeal a school board's decision to the Commissioner and the Commissioner shall hold a hearing as part of the appeal. [NOTE: Here is an example of the "option" where MAY is used and SHALL is used.

This became important today when the Chief Justice (CF) pointed out that the legislature wrote these laws and defined the responsibilities of the Commissioner. The CF pointed out that the law did allow some discretion to the Commissioner as to WHEN to hold the hearing, but IF a hearing was requested, the Commissioner was required to hold one.

Justices asked if Regan had asked the Commissioner for a hearing. It was acknowledged that Regan had, but then had requested that the Commissioner hold off on the hearing because Regan had filed for her case (with numerous and various issues) to be heard in Superior Court. It was then acknowledged that many of those issues had gone on to U.S. District Court which had thrown them out stating they did not constitute civil rights violations and sent them back to Superior Court - or to the Commissioner.

The Justices began to the crux of the matter when Justice Levy asked WHO WAS THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT? Mr. Densch stated SAD 63 was the aggrieved party because SAD 63 has been put off for 14 months by the Commissioner who has refused to simply hear the issue of whether or not the school board acted in compliance with Maine School Law when it took the actions it did, followed the procedures it did, and then, finding what it believed to be just cause - terminated Ms. Regan.

There was some discussion amongst the Justices that the current legislative law does not give the Commissioner the authority to do anything other than to determine the school board's action valid or invalid - meaning the Commissioner cannot award any damages to Ms. Regan should the Commissioner determine the board's actions were invalid. All the Commissioner could do is to order the board to give Ms. Regan back her position. So then the Justices asked how the district has been functioning since Ms. Regan was terminated. Mr. Densch noted that an Interim Superintendent was hired and things have gone forward. Justice Alexander pointed out to Ms. Forster that he presumed many superintendents might be appealing to the Commissioner what with this consolidation of schools. Ms. Forster didn't seem to think that would be the case.

Then Mr. Zmistowski spoke to the Justices. The MOST IMPORTANT point he made, as far as this writer can discern, was that Ms. Reagan doesn't intend to ask the Superior Court to determine whether or not her termination as superintendent was valid or not (!). Her case (and issues) in Superior Court is solely for redress of the other issues - at which point Mr. Zmistowski began to focus on the investigation the school board conducted as part of the required process to determine if there was just cause for termination (as least that's this writer's understanding of that issue).

Shortly after Mr. Zmistowski finished at the podium, Mr. Densch was offered the opportunity to provide any last remarks in rebuttal to Ms. Forster or Mr. Zmistowski. Mr. Densch, in the only time I have observed any hint of frustration by him in any court presentation, did state that if he heard another reference to the "investigation" he might just jump out the window (referencing the open ones in the court room). It was rather humorous considering how much frustration the man would be entitled to over so many reasons in this case and he has demonstrated none.

Within moments, there was that "All Rise". The Justices existed through those two doors through which they had originally entered. And we were done. At least for today. But I must say, I think the day was ours.

I really think the Justices "saw" the issues - that Regan (and her attorneys) have been playing the delay and stall game to avoid the direct path which would have brought this entire matter to conclusion years ago. And the Commissioner of Education has been avoiding her legal responsibilities as defined by law which has resulted in allowing a terminated employee to avoid a final determination. There were many questions asked by all of the Justices except Justices Miller and Mead who asked none. They appeared to be listening to everything and pondering what they were hearing. It also appeared that all of the questioning Justices had read the appeals materials previously submitted. The Chief Justice actively participated in the discussion and NONE of the Justices seemed particularly interested in the long answered Mr. Zmistowski tried to lay on them (since they repeatedly shut him off). My impression was that Ms. Forster wasn't making much of a case with the Justices either. They seemed to think that the Commissioner had a duty and jurisdiction defined by the Legislature and she shouldn't defer it to the courts.

At this point the writer thinks Ms. Regan and her counsel should be thinking they are walking on thin ice and are probably hoping for some kind of quick alternative settlement. The more I've looked into this case, the more convinced I am that while the board made some errors in the past by placing too much trust in an employee (which is what a superintendent is), the board took the appropriate action when it terminated Ms. Regan.

Some of the board members have paid a high personal price for doing the right thing for the people in our communities and the students in our school district. Others have been shown for being less than what the voters/taxpayers and parents have a right to expect of them. But in the end, I for one hope we do not end up providing any kind of settlement that can be misconstrued as the easy way or the cheaper ticket out of this case. It will only be seen as rewarding terribly bad behavior by people who betrayed the public's trust in the first place. And more might decide to take the same path for easy money as the taxpayers expense (as though we can afford it!).

Lastly, we have some heroes on our current school board and they are to be commended. As should be Bryon Densch and his associates. He is a quiet-spoken man but he is a mighty advocate for doing the right thing. We're lucky to have him on our side.

SAD 63 AT MAINE SUPREME COURT TODAY

I'll be in Portland today to hear the Oral Arguments being presented to the Maine Supreme Court hoping to obtain a court order requiring Commissioner of Education Gendron to conduct the post-deprivation hearing regarding the termination of employment of former school superintendent Louise Regan.

The attorneys for SAD 63 and Ms. Regan will be presenting arguments on one side and an Assistant (state) Attorney General will be arguing on the other side - arguing on behalf of the Commissioner (that she should not be compelled to conduct the hearing). Our tax dollars at work (or not).

I'll be reporting on the hearing ASAP. I expect travel time will be tight because there is also a Budget and Finance Committee meeting at 6pm tonight also (at the Holbrook Middle School) immediately followed by an Executive Committee called by School Board Chairman Varnum to FINALLY decide upon appointing an RSU committee to get started - and a negotiating team to get started working on the teachers' contracts also needing attention.

Nothing like waiting until the last minute.

Since Tuesdays are my long day to begin with (my Writers' Group meets Tuesday mornings in Bangor) and I'm getting my snow tires put on, plus the final work done on the car needed for the inspection - the posting for all these School Board activities may be done in the wee hours tonight or tomorrow night. Please be patient and Stay Tuned.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

GOOD NEWS

The BEST part of Tuesday was seeing how many people were voting at the Town Office at 9:30am and then even later around 4:30pm. In fact, I called the Eddington Town Office to see if I could get an official count of how many people voted (absentees included) and I am so pleased to report there were 1091 votes cast in Eddington. And there were even some new people registering that day, but it is estimated no more than 100 (and even THAT IS GREAT!) - What FANTASTIC news.

Granted, I wasn't all that happy with the results of many of the issues - but that is secondary to the fact that so many people came out and voted. Now, if we could just get a bunch of them back to regularly attend Selectmen meetings and School Board meetings.

Speaking of the School Board... Since school consolidation was not repealed, it's no wonder that Chairman Don Varnum has called for an Executive Meeting next Monday night following the Budget and Finance Committee meeting to discuss what needs to be done to form an RSU planning committee. One would think so. All the months since last June have been lost (and the work that could have been done) when people both on the Board and from the public have been asking for a committee to be formed to work on a back-up plan in case consolidation wasn't repealed. Even if the people had only come from Eddington, Clifton and Holden we would have been further ahead than we are now (because we can NOT just use the old RSU plan that was drafted a year ago. There were too many problems with that plan - not just that it included Brewer or the overall cost.).

We'll see what Mr. Varnum and Mr. Hart have in mind now.

But I doubt the voters and taxpayers will just fall in line if the price is unacceptable regardless of the state's "penalty". Maybe the bill should just be sent to Chairman Varnum as the cost of failing to provide any leadership. Wonder how Orrington and Dedham feel now? Maybe they've decided to form their own RSU and leave SAD 63 out of any of their discussion. And what about Otis? Otis was the only town that made it a specific point to come to a SAD 63 School Board meeting and asked to join with SAD 63. It sure would be nice if some of the parents who voted Tuesday would start to attend School Board meetings to see just what goes on (and what doesn't).

*******

Come by the Five Seasons Gift shop at the Clewley Farm Restaurant tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday between 9am and 2pm. I'll be working in the shop. There are some great seasonal gifts (Fall and Christmas). And you can get a great breakfast while you're at it in the restaurant.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

A "P.S." to Yesterday's Posting re: QUESTION 4

There is soooo much information out and about re: this question, and much of it is erroneous, but I feel some facts should be presented as examples WHY I believe passage of Question 4 will be beneficial for all taxpayers in Maine.

You may never have heard of the Government Facilities Authority (GFA) but it was created by the Maine Legislature in 1997 so that lawmakers could BORROW MONEY for government building projects without voter approval to borrow the money. In the same piece of legislation that created the GFA, the legislators borrowed $143 MILLION creating a public debt that the taxpayers never approved.*

During the 2000-2001 biennium, Maine taxpayers paid $7.2 MILLION in interest to service GFA debt. We will pay $39.4 MILLION during the current biennium, an increase in debt service spending of more than 440 percent - for debt we never approved. Is it any wonder the state government needs to continually increase taxes and fees to cover the cost of state government when they incur state debt the voters never approved in the first place. Approving Question 4 will stop this kind of activity and put the GFA out of business.*

On the other hand, in 2005, the Maine Legislature created a government oversight and accountability office called the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA). This office is non-partisan and works with the Legislature to provide government accountability.*

OPEGA has from its beginning pointed out areas of waste, inefficiency and poor management of funds. OPEGA's studies often led to a recommendation that some state program, commission or project be reduced or eliminated.*

So, in the summer of 2007, the 123rd legislature reduced the staffing by three key positions and funding of OPEGA by more than $300,000 and set up a legislative committee to review OPEGA to make sure OPEGA was effective and efficient.* Now isn't that something like sending in the fox to watch the chickens????? You don't suppose OPEGA upset some special interest groups by any chance do you?

Now, last but not least - a new television ad from the "No on Four" campaign - with the town of Hermon in the background. The message: That Town Meetings and local people are better able to run their local financial affairs and would lose the right to set their budget needs under TABOR because of some "format."

First of all, as far as the Town of Eddington is concerned, out of 1600 registered voters, there are less than 120 who show up at the Annual Town Meeting to actually vote on the Town's Budget and less than 50 who show up at either the Public Hearings for the Towns' proposed budget or the proposed school budget. There are probably less than 100 from Eddington who ever vote for the school budget. So nobody can tell me that the voters in Eddington didn't opt out of being active decision makers in the local budgetary process a long time ago, as depressing as that is.

AND, should Eddington voters ever want to become more involved in the process, as long as Eddington's Charter allows for the voters to submit a referendum or petition for a re-vote of the Town's Budget - or any portion of it, there are ample provisions under Question 4's proposed legislation that will allow for that. (Read yesterday's posting where I printed out the ENTIRE proposed legislation. One of the last sections identifies Municipalities which is where the issue is addressed.) BTW, after reading the entire proposed legislation, I didn't see anything about any format. There is a criteria based on inflation rate and population growth for any STATE increase. I saw nothing regarding local municipalities deciding for themselves how they wanted to spend their money.

Bottom Line: Vote YES on Question 4. It is the only way Maine will be able to get out of the debt state government has put us in to. Otherwise, we might just as well put this state up for sale because state government will tax us all in to bankruptcy.

* The information on GFA and OPEGA comes from The Piglet Book, researched and produced by the Maine Heritage Policy Center.