Not much snowfall during the past few days, thankfully. Heating oil truck has been and filled the tank, the tree is up and well decorated, gifts have been wrapped and mailed (yikes! the cost per box was approximately one-quarter the cost of the contents) and delivered. The Annual Open House was filled with cheer, good friends and family, and food.
In the midst of all this, we experienced a death in the family here in the Bangor area. Somehow this one was not as traumatic as the one a year and a half ago. But as we all gathered, some of us having just been together two weeks earlier, we are once again thankful for family and the message this season brings.
May you all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. The postings and blog will be on vacation until after the first of the year. My wishes for you all is that the coming year will be filled with peace and joy and better times.
Prayers are requested, as always, for the members of the military and their families who work and sacrifice for the democracy and freedom we are so privileged to have in this country.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
HOW TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT
Had a call from a resident after he read the last posting. He wanted to know how he could obtain a copy of the referenced Audit Report so he could compare the report to the questions the "group" submitted to the School Board (listed in the last posting).
All School Board Audit Reports are public documents, as are any audit reports for any towns in the state, or any government or public entity. And any citizen or taxpayer has the right to request and be provided a copy of those audit reports. Likewise, any citizen or taxpayer has the legal right under the Freedom of Information Act to question any information in said document and to receive, within 30 days, answers to those questions.
When the Question document was first submitted to the SAD 63 Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) Chairman, the document was almost immediately given over to the SAD 63 Business Manager to provide the answers (as though no one on the BFC would know or be able to answer the questions???) and an expressed concern that it might be "confidential information" to provide an answer as to how much the district owed, at that time, to the attorney representing the Board in the lawsuit re: the terminated former superintendent. It was "the groups' opinion" that whatever was owned was not confidential. It may have been confidential as to how much of that bill was going to be paid by the insurance company, but not how much was owed.
Anyway, to answer anyone who might be wondering how to obtain any audit report, simply contact the SAD 63 Central Office and request a copy of the report. It is suggested that the request be in writing with a date on the request. That way, if there is an unreasonable delay in providing the report, the requester can document the time frame when contacting the Maine Attorney General which would certainly result in a timely response from someone.
The requester might also want to let the BDN know what is happening. Periodically they seem interested in the goings on of the SAD 63 Board and the Central Office. As to the 2008-2009 audit - that was reportedly begun sometime in November...for a fiscal year that ended June 30. Ask any other business, or school district for that matter, what the time lag would be between the end of their fiscal year and the beginning of their audit process. Usually it's no more than two months - one of the issues raised in the "Question Document."
All School Board Audit Reports are public documents, as are any audit reports for any towns in the state, or any government or public entity. And any citizen or taxpayer has the right to request and be provided a copy of those audit reports. Likewise, any citizen or taxpayer has the legal right under the Freedom of Information Act to question any information in said document and to receive, within 30 days, answers to those questions.
When the Question document was first submitted to the SAD 63 Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) Chairman, the document was almost immediately given over to the SAD 63 Business Manager to provide the answers (as though no one on the BFC would know or be able to answer the questions???) and an expressed concern that it might be "confidential information" to provide an answer as to how much the district owed, at that time, to the attorney representing the Board in the lawsuit re: the terminated former superintendent. It was "the groups' opinion" that whatever was owned was not confidential. It may have been confidential as to how much of that bill was going to be paid by the insurance company, but not how much was owed.
Anyway, to answer anyone who might be wondering how to obtain any audit report, simply contact the SAD 63 Central Office and request a copy of the report. It is suggested that the request be in writing with a date on the request. That way, if there is an unreasonable delay in providing the report, the requester can document the time frame when contacting the Maine Attorney General which would certainly result in a timely response from someone.
The requester might also want to let the BDN know what is happening. Periodically they seem interested in the goings on of the SAD 63 Board and the Central Office. As to the 2008-2009 audit - that was reportedly begun sometime in November...for a fiscal year that ended June 30. Ask any other business, or school district for that matter, what the time lag would be between the end of their fiscal year and the beginning of their audit process. Usually it's no more than two months - one of the issues raised in the "Question Document."
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The following was delivered as a document to Mario Teisl, Chairman of the SAD 63 Budget & Finance Committee (BFC), at its October committee meeting. Under both the Board's policies and the Right of Information Act, the answers should have been provided within thirty (30) days. However, as the document states, the group requested the answers by the (full) Board's November meeting which took place November 30, 2009.
In Mr. Teisl's November BFC report, dated Saturday, 10/7/09 (when the meeting actually took place Tuesday, 10/9/09) to the Board, he stated, "The first order of business was to reflect on the residents' questions about the 2008 audit report that was given to the Committee at the last meeting. No member of the group was present at the current meeting so we decided to move onto (sic) other business."
It should be noted that three members of the group were present at the November 30th meeting and no offer was made by Mr. Teisl to provide the answers. It should also be noted that on 10/9/09, two members of the group arrived shortly after the 23 minute BFC meeting ended (and before the special Executive Session began). Those two members were Karen Clark, Board member, and this writer, a member of "the group." We arrived as soon as we could get there from the Portland hearing before the Maine Supreme Court. No attempt was made by Mr. Teisl, or any other member of the BFC, to provide any response document. Nor was there any mention by Mr. Teisl at that time that any responses to the document was available, even though he was clearly aware of both Karen's and my arrival.
A caller/reporter from Holden yesterday advised that the Maine Attorney General might be interested in this matter because, in spite of Mr. Hart's opinion, the LAW authorizes the public to have access to ALL public documents, such as school district audit reports, and REQUIRES answers to any questions the public (no matter how large or small a group) may ask re: such audits.
Therefore, for the Public's information, the following questions and "suggestions" were delivered to the SAD 63 Board, via the BFC as was the appropriate procedure. Perhaps members of any RPCs might want to take note as well.
*****
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
2007-2008 SAD63 AUDIT
A group of citizens from Eddington and Clifton collectively reviewed the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit. The individuals included Eddington Town Manager, Russell Smith; Vice Chairman of the Clifton Board of Selectmen (with full support of that Board), Penny Peasley; Eddington School Board Representative, Karen Clark; Eddington resident Rusty Gagnon (retired multi-million dollar government facility business manager); and Eddington resident Charles L. Wellman, Administrator and CEO of the Eastport Health Center. All of these individuals have experience with government funding and accountability, accounting practices and audit procedures. At the time of the review in question, the 2006-2007 Audit had not been reviewed for comparison. The questions below were developed by the group following the 2007-2008 review.
General Observation:
The overall lack of footnotes to explain significant changes in specific categories hinders understanding of various areas of the report, i.e., the increase of Current liabilities in the amount of $514,783 from 2007 to 2008 (as noted on pg. 8 under the heading of Net Assets for the Period Ending June 30, 2008).
QUESTIONS:
Process Issues:
When was the financial information given to the Auditors? (A specific date please.)
When was the Audit Report completed?
How much is the District paying Brantner, Thibodeau & Associates to conduct the audit and prepare the Audit Report?
How much did the District pay the previous Auditors for the same services?
When will the 2008-2009 Audit Report be started?
(NOTE: The Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2009. Professional standards would expect the
Year-end books to be closed by August 31, 2009. A standard audit procedure where there
are no outstanding problems, especially for an entity the size of this district, should take
no more than four months. Using that measurement, SAD63’s Audit Report for Fiscal
Year 2008-2009 should be completed by January 2010 in order for the School Board’s
Budget and Finance Committee to use that information when preparing the 2010-2011
Budget, and for any school consolidation negotiations.)
If the Auditors project a need for more than four months to complete the audit
process, Why?
QUESTIONS:
Information contained in the Audit Report:
Why aren’t totals spent in 2008 for specific categories the same when reported in different sections of the report?
[NOTE: Compare data reported on pgs 10 and pg 13 – categories: Plant operations and
Maintenance, Transportation, School lunch program, and Contingency and other. The
sums of these categories differ from one page to the other in the amount of $80,314.
Pg. 10 notes (under the first . listing Revenues) federal sources accounted for $425,495 of total revue. When reviewing Assets from Governmental Funds (listed on pg. 14), the group could not identify that amount of money. If placed in the General Fund, it should be so noted and it isn’t. It is not listed in either “Special Revenue Grants” or “Other Governmental Funds”, so where are those funds and how are they accounted for?
Pg. 10 notes (under the first . listing Revenues) shows the same amount of funding from local assessment ($3,599,324) but there is an inconsistency in the amount shown for state sources. Please explain the $5,211,042 difference between the “state sources” referenced on Pg. 10 totaling $5,489,543 and the State Subsidy referenced on Pg. 13 in the amount of $5,211,042 (a difference in the amount of $278,501).
Pgs. 18-19 list a Private Purpose trust for scholarship and other purposes which earned $216 in interest over the year but shows no disbursement during the year. Why were there no disbursements from the trust?
[NOTE: The group did not think this trust should be used for any student outside the
three towns should consolidation take place.]
Under the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (pg. 20) it was noted “…the District has elected not to apply Financial Accounting Standards Board Statements and Interpretations, Accounting Principles Board Opinions, and Accounting Research Bulletins of the Committee of Accounting Procedure issued after November 30, 1989.” It had been noted that the District does not utilize the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). (The explanation offered is that under GAAP the District would show the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund.) Since the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund is not a cost to the District’s taxpayers, Why are these basic accounting standards not utilized by SAD63 management?
Related to 5. above: In the Auditor’s cover letter, they write about information on pages 6-11 and 32-33 that …“are not a required part of the basic financials, but yet they are required by GAAP.” Is this limited to the inclusion of the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund? If this is not the only limitation, please explain what else GAAP requires.
Related to 5. above: Again, on page 4 of the Report, in the last paragraph, the 2nd sentence states, “We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management.” Please explain what inquiries were made by the auditors and why. Please explain what explanations and instructions were given to the auditors?
Pg. 32 & 33 – Expenditures show a budgeted amount for System administration (not School administration) in the amount of $324,730, but an Actual Amount spent in the amount of $400,981. Why was there an increase in the amount of $76,251 in a year when the Superintendent was terminated?
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
1. It was noted in 2008-2009 SAD63 Budget and Finance committee meetings, as well as the 2009 May Public Hearing to discuss the proposed 2009-2010 budget, that the District’s business office needs to make the necessary changes in its formatting of various financial documents (monthly financial statements, proposed annual budgets, and any other financial reports and documents) to one consistent format. This will enable all parties to more accurately and clearly compare data for any given area from one reporting period to another. These changes need to be effective immediately.
2. Monthly financial statements should report data for funds received and spent on both month-to-date and year-to-date bases, as well as showing actual totals spent and comparative data for the current month (compared to the same month in the previous year). The monthly financial reports should also include itemized deductions of state funds, deductions from previous year’s overstated budget, donations, etc. An additional benefit would be a column showing the number of students (per school) on a comparative year basis (the current year to the previous year).
3. In 2009/2010, we expect the District Business Office to provide monthly financial reports to the School Board’s Budget and Finance Committee. The reports should also be provided to the Town Managers of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. This distribution should be done by the last business day of the month following the preceding month. This allows sufficient time for the District’s business office to close its month-end books and to produce/distribute the reports.
4. While the Audit Report made only brief mention of the pending lawsuit between the District and the previous Superintendent, it would be beneficial if the Chairman of the School Board would provide monthly status reports of the case (and current costs not being paid by the District’s insurance company) to the Town Managers of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. As stated by the Interim Superintendent, at some point the three Boards of Selectmen are going to have to call special town meetings to address the need for voters to approve necessary funding for any outstanding debt.
5. It was mentioned several times throughout the Audit Report that the District opts not to follow GAAP accounting principles. The Auditors felt it important to point out those areas (see page 11 under General Fund Highlights, the 1st and 2nd indented paragraph; see page 20, the 2nd paragraph; and see page 23, the 1st paragraph).
If the District hopes to consolidate with other schools, it is important our financial records are able to blend in with those record-keeping systems of the other (unknown) schools. It is also possible that it might cost this District less for auditing services if the District managed its books in a manner considered “standard.”
We appreciate the time required to address our concerns; however, we believe answers should be provided by the November School Board meeting. Thank you.
*****
The very first question re: when the financial data was given to the auditors relates to the fact that the Audit Report was not completed until July 2009 (and reportedly not begun until the Spring of 2009). Standard practices would have had the audit report completed and delivered before May 2009. This would indicate a problem either in the SAD 63 business office or with the auditors. In light of the five months in the first part of 2009 when there were no monthly financial statements provided by the business manager to the School Board, one wonders if there is a relationship between that and the lateness of the audit procedures. Regardless of whatever work may or may not have been done by the SAD 63 business office for the failed RSU, the business manager was paid over $70,000 to do the work of SAD 63 (not to mention the significant bonus she received at the end of the year for the alleged cost savings she was "responsible for.")
In Mr. Teisl's November BFC report, dated Saturday, 10/7/09 (when the meeting actually took place Tuesday, 10/9/09) to the Board, he stated, "The first order of business was to reflect on the residents' questions about the 2008 audit report that was given to the Committee at the last meeting. No member of the group was present at the current meeting so we decided to move onto (sic) other business."
It should be noted that three members of the group were present at the November 30th meeting and no offer was made by Mr. Teisl to provide the answers. It should also be noted that on 10/9/09, two members of the group arrived shortly after the 23 minute BFC meeting ended (and before the special Executive Session began). Those two members were Karen Clark, Board member, and this writer, a member of "the group." We arrived as soon as we could get there from the Portland hearing before the Maine Supreme Court. No attempt was made by Mr. Teisl, or any other member of the BFC, to provide any response document. Nor was there any mention by Mr. Teisl at that time that any responses to the document was available, even though he was clearly aware of both Karen's and my arrival.
A caller/reporter from Holden yesterday advised that the Maine Attorney General might be interested in this matter because, in spite of Mr. Hart's opinion, the LAW authorizes the public to have access to ALL public documents, such as school district audit reports, and REQUIRES answers to any questions the public (no matter how large or small a group) may ask re: such audits.
Therefore, for the Public's information, the following questions and "suggestions" were delivered to the SAD 63 Board, via the BFC as was the appropriate procedure. Perhaps members of any RPCs might want to take note as well.
*****
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
2007-2008 SAD63 AUDIT
A group of citizens from Eddington and Clifton collectively reviewed the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit. The individuals included Eddington Town Manager, Russell Smith; Vice Chairman of the Clifton Board of Selectmen (with full support of that Board), Penny Peasley; Eddington School Board Representative, Karen Clark; Eddington resident Rusty Gagnon (retired multi-million dollar government facility business manager); and Eddington resident Charles L. Wellman, Administrator and CEO of the Eastport Health Center. All of these individuals have experience with government funding and accountability, accounting practices and audit procedures. At the time of the review in question, the 2006-2007 Audit had not been reviewed for comparison. The questions below were developed by the group following the 2007-2008 review.
General Observation:
The overall lack of footnotes to explain significant changes in specific categories hinders understanding of various areas of the report, i.e., the increase of Current liabilities in the amount of $514,783 from 2007 to 2008 (as noted on pg. 8 under the heading of Net Assets for the Period Ending June 30, 2008).
QUESTIONS:
Process Issues:
When was the financial information given to the Auditors? (A specific date please.)
When was the Audit Report completed?
How much is the District paying Brantner, Thibodeau & Associates to conduct the audit and prepare the Audit Report?
How much did the District pay the previous Auditors for the same services?
When will the 2008-2009 Audit Report be started?
(NOTE: The Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2009. Professional standards would expect the
Year-end books to be closed by August 31, 2009. A standard audit procedure where there
are no outstanding problems, especially for an entity the size of this district, should take
no more than four months. Using that measurement, SAD63’s Audit Report for Fiscal
Year 2008-2009 should be completed by January 2010 in order for the School Board’s
Budget and Finance Committee to use that information when preparing the 2010-2011
Budget, and for any school consolidation negotiations.)
If the Auditors project a need for more than four months to complete the audit
process, Why?
QUESTIONS:
Information contained in the Audit Report:
Why aren’t totals spent in 2008 for specific categories the same when reported in different sections of the report?
[NOTE: Compare data reported on pgs 10 and pg 13 – categories: Plant operations and
Maintenance, Transportation, School lunch program, and Contingency and other. The
sums of these categories differ from one page to the other in the amount of $80,314.
Pg. 10 notes (under the first . listing Revenues) federal sources accounted for $425,495 of total revue. When reviewing Assets from Governmental Funds (listed on pg. 14), the group could not identify that amount of money. If placed in the General Fund, it should be so noted and it isn’t. It is not listed in either “Special Revenue Grants” or “Other Governmental Funds”, so where are those funds and how are they accounted for?
Pg. 10 notes (under the first . listing Revenues) shows the same amount of funding from local assessment ($3,599,324) but there is an inconsistency in the amount shown for state sources. Please explain the $5,211,042 difference between the “state sources” referenced on Pg. 10 totaling $5,489,543 and the State Subsidy referenced on Pg. 13 in the amount of $5,211,042 (a difference in the amount of $278,501).
Pgs. 18-19 list a Private Purpose trust for scholarship and other purposes which earned $216 in interest over the year but shows no disbursement during the year. Why were there no disbursements from the trust?
[NOTE: The group did not think this trust should be used for any student outside the
three towns should consolidation take place.]
Under the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (pg. 20) it was noted “…the District has elected not to apply Financial Accounting Standards Board Statements and Interpretations, Accounting Principles Board Opinions, and Accounting Research Bulletins of the Committee of Accounting Procedure issued after November 30, 1989.” It had been noted that the District does not utilize the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). (The explanation offered is that under GAAP the District would show the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund.) Since the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund is not a cost to the District’s taxpayers, Why are these basic accounting standards not utilized by SAD63 management?
Related to 5. above: In the Auditor’s cover letter, they write about information on pages 6-11 and 32-33 that …“are not a required part of the basic financials, but yet they are required by GAAP.” Is this limited to the inclusion of the State’s contribution to the teachers’ retirement fund? If this is not the only limitation, please explain what else GAAP requires.
Related to 5. above: Again, on page 4 of the Report, in the last paragraph, the 2nd sentence states, “We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management.” Please explain what inquiries were made by the auditors and why. Please explain what explanations and instructions were given to the auditors?
Pg. 32 & 33 – Expenditures show a budgeted amount for System administration (not School administration) in the amount of $324,730, but an Actual Amount spent in the amount of $400,981. Why was there an increase in the amount of $76,251 in a year when the Superintendent was terminated?
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
1. It was noted in 2008-2009 SAD63 Budget and Finance committee meetings, as well as the 2009 May Public Hearing to discuss the proposed 2009-2010 budget, that the District’s business office needs to make the necessary changes in its formatting of various financial documents (monthly financial statements, proposed annual budgets, and any other financial reports and documents) to one consistent format. This will enable all parties to more accurately and clearly compare data for any given area from one reporting period to another. These changes need to be effective immediately.
2. Monthly financial statements should report data for funds received and spent on both month-to-date and year-to-date bases, as well as showing actual totals spent and comparative data for the current month (compared to the same month in the previous year). The monthly financial reports should also include itemized deductions of state funds, deductions from previous year’s overstated budget, donations, etc. An additional benefit would be a column showing the number of students (per school) on a comparative year basis (the current year to the previous year).
3. In 2009/2010, we expect the District Business Office to provide monthly financial reports to the School Board’s Budget and Finance Committee. The reports should also be provided to the Town Managers of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. This distribution should be done by the last business day of the month following the preceding month. This allows sufficient time for the District’s business office to close its month-end books and to produce/distribute the reports.
4. While the Audit Report made only brief mention of the pending lawsuit between the District and the previous Superintendent, it would be beneficial if the Chairman of the School Board would provide monthly status reports of the case (and current costs not being paid by the District’s insurance company) to the Town Managers of Clifton, Eddington and Holden. As stated by the Interim Superintendent, at some point the three Boards of Selectmen are going to have to call special town meetings to address the need for voters to approve necessary funding for any outstanding debt.
5. It was mentioned several times throughout the Audit Report that the District opts not to follow GAAP accounting principles. The Auditors felt it important to point out those areas (see page 11 under General Fund Highlights, the 1st and 2nd indented paragraph; see page 20, the 2nd paragraph; and see page 23, the 1st paragraph).
If the District hopes to consolidate with other schools, it is important our financial records are able to blend in with those record-keeping systems of the other (unknown) schools. It is also possible that it might cost this District less for auditing services if the District managed its books in a manner considered “standard.”
We appreciate the time required to address our concerns; however, we believe answers should be provided by the November School Board meeting. Thank you.
*****
The very first question re: when the financial data was given to the auditors relates to the fact that the Audit Report was not completed until July 2009 (and reportedly not begun until the Spring of 2009). Standard practices would have had the audit report completed and delivered before May 2009. This would indicate a problem either in the SAD 63 business office or with the auditors. In light of the five months in the first part of 2009 when there were no monthly financial statements provided by the business manager to the School Board, one wonders if there is a relationship between that and the lateness of the audit procedures. Regardless of whatever work may or may not have been done by the SAD 63 business office for the failed RSU, the business manager was paid over $70,000 to do the work of SAD 63 (not to mention the significant bonus she received at the end of the year for the alleged cost savings she was "responsible for.")
Friday, December 18, 2009
SAD 63 SETTLEMENT - PER BANGOR DAILY NEWS
SAD 63 agrees to pay fired superintendent $300,000
By Nok-Noi RickerBDN Staff
HOLDEN, Maine — The SAD 63 board, during an emergency meeting Wednesday night, agreed to pay fired Superintendent Louise Regan $300,000 to drop the multicount lawsuit she filed against the district and five of its members.
The board also agreed to rescind her termination, and “will accept Louise Regan’s resignation” effective on the day the completed settlement agreement is signed.
“Under the terms of the agreement, no party admits any liability or fault,” says a statement from the board, endorsed during the emergency meeting. “The District will pay to Ms. Regan the sum of $300,000 in settlement of all claims in the lawsuit.”
Residents within the SAD 63 communities of Holden, Eddington and Clifton will pay $125,000 of the tab with the district’s insurance company — Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. — picking up the remainder, the statement says. (Translation: Taxpayers from Eddington, Clifton and Holden will be required to pick up the tab for $125,000.)
The statement does not mention who will pay lawyers’ fees, which have climbed over the $500,000 mark in the last two years between the district and Regan.
“Without this settlement the parties anticipated many more months of costly litigation before the case would ultimately be resolved,” the district’s statement says. “It is in the best interest of all concerned to bring it to a conclusion.”
The former SAD 63 superintendent sued the district and five board members who in October 2007 allowed one member to read a “letter of concern” regarding her actions surrounding previously recorded meeting tapes.
It is the actions that night, a subsequent investigation of Regan’s conduct and her firing in July 2008 that spurred the legal matters.
During the school board’s Oct. 22, 2007, meeting, then board member Dion Seymour, with the approval of a majority of the eight directors, read a statement that basically said Regan had told lies about him to three other board members concerning the tapes. He said those lies “maligned” him and his integrity.
At the end of the regular meeting, the board held a 1½-hour closed-door session, and afterward Seymour rescinded his letter of concern and the board issued an apology for its actions that evening.
The five board members who voted to allow Seymour to read his letter — Seymour, Karen Clark, Therese Anderson, Linda Goodrich and Robert Kiah — are the ones named in Regan’s lawsuit. Three of the five who were sued are no longer board members. Goodrich resigned from the board citing stress from the lawsuit, Seymour lost his seat during the June 2008 local election, and Kiah decided not to run when his term expired in June 2009.
Regan claimed defamation and violation of her rights related to the October 2007 school board meeting, the investigation into her conduct and her firing.
According to the district statement obtained Thursday, “This settlement eliminates the need for further proceedings in the Penobscot County Superior Court or before the Maine Commissioner of Education.”
Commissioner Susan Gendron had scheduled a hearing for Dec. 21 and 22 in Augusta to determine whether there was cause for Regan’s termination.
“This settlement enables all parties to put this behind them, to stop incurring litigation costs, and to go forward with their own lives and responsibilities in public education,” the SAD 63 statement reads. “This dispute has been a severe hardship on all involved.”
Five board members in attendance at Wednesday’s emergency meeting unanimously endorsed the statement and the eight-item settlement outline, deputy chairwoman Karen Clark said Wednesday, declining to make a statement. Voting on the settlement were Clark, Theresa Anderson, Sylvia Ellis, Kevin Mills and Mario Teisel.
Chairman Don Varnum and board members Pamela Dorr and Chris Fickett were unable to attend the emergency meeting.
Regan’s attorney, Thad Zmistowski, said Thursday, “It looks like things are getting worked out.
“It’s my understanding that the parties have come to a agreement in principle, and we’re working out the details,” he said. “Beyond that, it’s not appropriate to comment at this time.”
The agreement between Regan and SAD 63 brings “this long and unfortunate dispute to a close,” the district said in its statement.
nricker@bangordailynews.net
NOTE: There are two errors in this article. Kevin Mills was NOT in attendance - AND - Chris Fickett WAS in attendance.
ALSO: Don Varnum is tending his resignation from the Board effective immediately citing health issues. AND - no meeting of any RPC committee has been called. Maybe it's time for someone to show some leadership instead of waiting for Orrington to "approve" anything. Who put Orrington "in charge" - or maybe that community is the only one assumed to have some leadership (aka "backbone.") Certainly doesn't appear to be any on the SAD 63 Board.
By Nok-Noi RickerBDN Staff
HOLDEN, Maine — The SAD 63 board, during an emergency meeting Wednesday night, agreed to pay fired Superintendent Louise Regan $300,000 to drop the multicount lawsuit she filed against the district and five of its members.
The board also agreed to rescind her termination, and “will accept Louise Regan’s resignation” effective on the day the completed settlement agreement is signed.
“Under the terms of the agreement, no party admits any liability or fault,” says a statement from the board, endorsed during the emergency meeting. “The District will pay to Ms. Regan the sum of $300,000 in settlement of all claims in the lawsuit.”
Residents within the SAD 63 communities of Holden, Eddington and Clifton will pay $125,000 of the tab with the district’s insurance company — Aspen Specialty Insurance Co. — picking up the remainder, the statement says. (Translation: Taxpayers from Eddington, Clifton and Holden will be required to pick up the tab for $125,000.)
The statement does not mention who will pay lawyers’ fees, which have climbed over the $500,000 mark in the last two years between the district and Regan.
“Without this settlement the parties anticipated many more months of costly litigation before the case would ultimately be resolved,” the district’s statement says. “It is in the best interest of all concerned to bring it to a conclusion.”
The former SAD 63 superintendent sued the district and five board members who in October 2007 allowed one member to read a “letter of concern” regarding her actions surrounding previously recorded meeting tapes.
It is the actions that night, a subsequent investigation of Regan’s conduct and her firing in July 2008 that spurred the legal matters.
During the school board’s Oct. 22, 2007, meeting, then board member Dion Seymour, with the approval of a majority of the eight directors, read a statement that basically said Regan had told lies about him to three other board members concerning the tapes. He said those lies “maligned” him and his integrity.
At the end of the regular meeting, the board held a 1½-hour closed-door session, and afterward Seymour rescinded his letter of concern and the board issued an apology for its actions that evening.
The five board members who voted to allow Seymour to read his letter — Seymour, Karen Clark, Therese Anderson, Linda Goodrich and Robert Kiah — are the ones named in Regan’s lawsuit. Three of the five who were sued are no longer board members. Goodrich resigned from the board citing stress from the lawsuit, Seymour lost his seat during the June 2008 local election, and Kiah decided not to run when his term expired in June 2009.
Regan claimed defamation and violation of her rights related to the October 2007 school board meeting, the investigation into her conduct and her firing.
According to the district statement obtained Thursday, “This settlement eliminates the need for further proceedings in the Penobscot County Superior Court or before the Maine Commissioner of Education.”
Commissioner Susan Gendron had scheduled a hearing for Dec. 21 and 22 in Augusta to determine whether there was cause for Regan’s termination.
“This settlement enables all parties to put this behind them, to stop incurring litigation costs, and to go forward with their own lives and responsibilities in public education,” the SAD 63 statement reads. “This dispute has been a severe hardship on all involved.”
Five board members in attendance at Wednesday’s emergency meeting unanimously endorsed the statement and the eight-item settlement outline, deputy chairwoman Karen Clark said Wednesday, declining to make a statement. Voting on the settlement were Clark, Theresa Anderson, Sylvia Ellis, Kevin Mills and Mario Teisel.
Chairman Don Varnum and board members Pamela Dorr and Chris Fickett were unable to attend the emergency meeting.
Regan’s attorney, Thad Zmistowski, said Thursday, “It looks like things are getting worked out.
“It’s my understanding that the parties have come to a agreement in principle, and we’re working out the details,” he said. “Beyond that, it’s not appropriate to comment at this time.”
The agreement between Regan and SAD 63 brings “this long and unfortunate dispute to a close,” the district said in its statement.
nricker@bangordailynews.net
NOTE: There are two errors in this article. Kevin Mills was NOT in attendance - AND - Chris Fickett WAS in attendance.
ALSO: Don Varnum is tending his resignation from the Board effective immediately citing health issues. AND - no meeting of any RPC committee has been called. Maybe it's time for someone to show some leadership instead of waiting for Orrington to "approve" anything. Who put Orrington "in charge" - or maybe that community is the only one assumed to have some leadership (aka "backbone.") Certainly doesn't appear to be any on the SAD 63 Board.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO YESTERDAY'S POSTING
I have no idea what, if any, result came from last night's School Board meeting. But my thoughts about what is the probable major influencing factor can be found in the comments posted to yesterday's posting.
I did receive a phone call today asking what the questions/issues were re: the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit report. I'll post the entire document here tomorrow.
I did receive a phone call today asking what the questions/issues were re: the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit report. I'll post the entire document here tomorrow.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
ACTIVITIES IN THE HOOD - AND EARLY RESOLUTIONS
Last Night (Tuesday) was Eddington's Selectmen's meeting and Special Town Meeting. Didn't attend but expect the grant application was approved. This writer attended the Public Hearing on December 1 which provided the necessary information and the grant and conditions seemed reasonable. We'll see if the promises made by the Board re: the March Town meeting and subsequent notifications are made - or if anyone notices/cares.
There is going to be a special meeting of the SAD 63 School Board this week, I believe. Therese Anderson, Vice Chair seems to be the Acting Chair these days because of illness having been experienced by Chairman Varnum.
Seems the telephone hearing with the Commissioner has been put on hold perhaps because of this special Board meeting. One has to wonder if the powers behind the throne want to push through some kind of Settlement via the Mediation process that was started weeks ago (instead of the Commissioner's Hearing? which will boggle the mind if that's the case).
WHY would the taxpayers want to go the Settlement Route (not that we count) - except that a Settlement means WE will be stuck with some kind of bill on top of the expected increased cost of educating the children since the state is planning to decrease it's financial share anyway. If the Commissioner were to rule in favor of the Board, that would take the very heart out of former superintendent Regan's case. So one can logically see why Regan and her legal counsel might be pushing very hard for a settlement at this time. But the Board certainly shouldn't be. Of course, the taxpayers won't get any say in the matter. What else in new? We'll just get stuck with the bill - and maybe with having to rehire Regan in some capacity since that is what Interim Superintendent Hart freely suggested during the teachers workshops a few weeks ago - saying she might very well be coming back as the superintendent or in some other capacity....! (Was that past of what she and her legal counsel said they wanted as part of the settlement in the mediation session?) Maybe she just needs more years to obtain her state retirement and it's unlikely with all that's been written in the local newspapers she'd be able to obtain employment outside of SAD 63 (or the whatever RSU the area will become). Just makes sense if anyone wants to think the matter through. Not that there's a lot of that going on around here lately. What a boondoggle this whole mess has turned out to be. And should we look at who might be behind the orchestration? Don't expect his residence is in Eddington, Clifton or Holden.
Interesting thought: What if the voters, who will have to approve any loan or financial arrangement associated with the settlement, vote NO. Does anyone suppose the settlement will have to be therefore paid out of the personal checkbooks and savings accounts of the members of the School Board? Now that would be true justice!
With all of the success the Board's legal counsel has had to date, (and if the Board members would actually READ the documents that have been produced...) it would be irresponsible to go into a costly settlement or rehire instead of having the Commissioner hear the case. Of course, getting the Board members to read the documents - all of them - is far too much to expect for at least half of them. Why they ran for their positions is another question - but someone else will have to ask that one in more depth than I care to go in to.
BUT - since not one single new person has bothered to attend the School Board meetings since this blog has started tracking and reporting the "behavior" of the SAD 63 Board, and not one single parent from Eddington or Clifton (and only one from Holden) is the least bit concerned, and only the Clifton Selectmen and the town manager and one Selectman at a time from Eddington shows up (and only after a fire is lit and then doused and then when "ordered") - it is apparent that monitoring any governing body that raises the taxes and feels no accountability for how those taxes are spent - is a waste of my time and energy.
So I'm not going to do it any more. I, too, can sit at home in my easy chair, read a book or watch TV and be comfortable and not give a tinker's toot. It is apparent that there isn't a single capable manager or leader on the School Board. In all the Budget & Finance Committee meetings I've attended, I've not heard a single question raised as to why monies were spent or why they were spent in one area and not another (other than in Holden which seems to get carte blanche) even when it has been known since October that the state was not going to meet it's fiscal portion. The Board doesn't "manage" anything and there is more that goes on behind the scenes than is transparent.
The answers to the questions that were submitted the first of October re: the 2007-2008 Audit were supposedly prepared but have not been given to the group of five who prepared and submitted them, even though three of the individuals were at the November 30 Board meeting. Mr. Hart's position is that no group of citizens have any right to ask questions of information in the audit, even though the audit is a public document and the money spent to fund the school district comes from the public. Apparently the public/taxpayers are simply to be considered an Open Checkbook at the mercy of the School Board and the various Board of Selectmen.
And every citizen in these three towns apparently feels the same because no one attends any meetings or asks any questions or expects any accountability of these Boards. Welcome to small town Maine democracy. And who cares? Not me any longer.
There is going to be a special meeting of the SAD 63 School Board this week, I believe. Therese Anderson, Vice Chair seems to be the Acting Chair these days because of illness having been experienced by Chairman Varnum.
Seems the telephone hearing with the Commissioner has been put on hold perhaps because of this special Board meeting. One has to wonder if the powers behind the throne want to push through some kind of Settlement via the Mediation process that was started weeks ago (instead of the Commissioner's Hearing? which will boggle the mind if that's the case).
WHY would the taxpayers want to go the Settlement Route (not that we count) - except that a Settlement means WE will be stuck with some kind of bill on top of the expected increased cost of educating the children since the state is planning to decrease it's financial share anyway. If the Commissioner were to rule in favor of the Board, that would take the very heart out of former superintendent Regan's case. So one can logically see why Regan and her legal counsel might be pushing very hard for a settlement at this time. But the Board certainly shouldn't be. Of course, the taxpayers won't get any say in the matter. What else in new? We'll just get stuck with the bill - and maybe with having to rehire Regan in some capacity since that is what Interim Superintendent Hart freely suggested during the teachers workshops a few weeks ago - saying she might very well be coming back as the superintendent or in some other capacity....! (Was that past of what she and her legal counsel said they wanted as part of the settlement in the mediation session?) Maybe she just needs more years to obtain her state retirement and it's unlikely with all that's been written in the local newspapers she'd be able to obtain employment outside of SAD 63 (or the whatever RSU the area will become). Just makes sense if anyone wants to think the matter through. Not that there's a lot of that going on around here lately. What a boondoggle this whole mess has turned out to be. And should we look at who might be behind the orchestration? Don't expect his residence is in Eddington, Clifton or Holden.
Interesting thought: What if the voters, who will have to approve any loan or financial arrangement associated with the settlement, vote NO. Does anyone suppose the settlement will have to be therefore paid out of the personal checkbooks and savings accounts of the members of the School Board? Now that would be true justice!
With all of the success the Board's legal counsel has had to date, (and if the Board members would actually READ the documents that have been produced...) it would be irresponsible to go into a costly settlement or rehire instead of having the Commissioner hear the case. Of course, getting the Board members to read the documents - all of them - is far too much to expect for at least half of them. Why they ran for their positions is another question - but someone else will have to ask that one in more depth than I care to go in to.
BUT - since not one single new person has bothered to attend the School Board meetings since this blog has started tracking and reporting the "behavior" of the SAD 63 Board, and not one single parent from Eddington or Clifton (and only one from Holden) is the least bit concerned, and only the Clifton Selectmen and the town manager and one Selectman at a time from Eddington shows up (and only after a fire is lit and then doused and then when "ordered") - it is apparent that monitoring any governing body that raises the taxes and feels no accountability for how those taxes are spent - is a waste of my time and energy.
So I'm not going to do it any more. I, too, can sit at home in my easy chair, read a book or watch TV and be comfortable and not give a tinker's toot. It is apparent that there isn't a single capable manager or leader on the School Board. In all the Budget & Finance Committee meetings I've attended, I've not heard a single question raised as to why monies were spent or why they were spent in one area and not another (other than in Holden which seems to get carte blanche) even when it has been known since October that the state was not going to meet it's fiscal portion. The Board doesn't "manage" anything and there is more that goes on behind the scenes than is transparent.
The answers to the questions that were submitted the first of October re: the 2007-2008 Audit were supposedly prepared but have not been given to the group of five who prepared and submitted them, even though three of the individuals were at the November 30 Board meeting. Mr. Hart's position is that no group of citizens have any right to ask questions of information in the audit, even though the audit is a public document and the money spent to fund the school district comes from the public. Apparently the public/taxpayers are simply to be considered an Open Checkbook at the mercy of the School Board and the various Board of Selectmen.
And every citizen in these three towns apparently feels the same because no one attends any meetings or asks any questions or expects any accountability of these Boards. Welcome to small town Maine democracy. And who cares? Not me any longer.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
THIS WEEK'S BOARD MEETINGS - SURPRISES GALORE
Life is filled with surprises – many unexpected, some disappointing, some more beneficial than at first glance. So went the proceedings of the two Board meetings this week.
The SAD 63 School Board meeting Monday night had a few.
It seems lots of telephone conversations took place after the Nov. 24th joint meeting of the Clifton and Eddington Boards of Selectmen where a quorum of both Boards voted unanimously to oppose the transfer of parcel #2 at the Holden School to the Town of Holden. At the end of that meeting, Eddington’s Town Manager was directed to (1) write up the letter affirming the vote for the appropriate signatures, (2) fax it to Clifton for signing and return and then (3) hand deliver the signed letter to the school district’s central office on Monday November 30th.
The direction then was to have the letter read into the official record at the SAD 63 Board meeting Monday night when representatives from both towns’ Board of Selectmen would be in attendance to affirm the contents of the letter. BUT, Surprise #1 – by Monday the two Boards had changed their collective minds and spoke in support of the transfer at the school board meeting. And so the school board voted accordingly and the deed was done.
Reportedly the Release Deed, when it is written, has been instructed to carry language that the land shall (or maybe the language will just say “will”, which does not carry the same legally mandatory weight as the word “shall) stay in some form of a Public Trust, and that the land will (shall?) be transferred back to the school should there be a need of the school for the land, such as for an expansion of the septic system.
The "Back story" to this 180 degree change of events seems related to at least two (maybe more) after-the-fact “influences”: (A) Therese Anderson, rep from Eddington, announced to one of the Selectmen in advance of the school board meting she would be voting for the transfer of the land at the Board meeting. (Therese did not attend the joint meeting of the Selectmen although she was informed of the meeting. She reportedly had a work conflict.)
During my conversation with the party who forewarned me of the Boards change of position, I heard the oft-used justification that the school board is an elected (and “independent”) body. The inference to that kind of thinking is that it does not need to listen to or be concerned with the positions or opinions of the townspeople (or elected governing bodies) from towns which comprise the school district. Of course I have heard directly on at least three different occasions from Interim Superintendent Hart and School Chairman Varnum that "the land belongs to the school board and we can do with it as we choose."
Readers should remember that it was Anderson who stepped in and stopped Varnum from trying to slide through a vote on transferring parcel #2 at the October board meeting. Perhaps there has been some “restructuring” of Anderson’s independence in the past month.
The (B) “influence”: At least one of the Selectmen still seemed to think that sections of the old RSU (that was voted down intact) still apply. Therefore the old section that stated …should a school be selected for closure, all property attached to that school (and by inference – the land) could be sold by the new RSU Board. Applying that language to the Holden School defies logic, as has been explained with numerous reasons in previous postings. But individuals from Holden (Selectmen and members of the school board) have repeatedly used it to try to push this land deal for the last nine months. Apparently they were successful. And with Holden's four votes on the School Board and Anderson's vote - the deed would have been done regardless. So, it appears it is better to be on the side that is going to win rather than the side that is right.
However, (just for reference) until the New Regional Planning Committee (RPC) actually convenes and reaffirms any sections of the Old RSU documents, the sections do not currently apply and are not legally binding at this time.
Surprise #2: Varnum reported his meeting November 17th with a representative from the Commissioner of Education’s office, the School Board chairs from Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8, and Otis. He indicated that SAD 63 would be submitting a Letter of Intent to the Commissioner requesting the Commissioner’s approval of the formation of an RSU that would include Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8 and SAD 63.
At that point, a school board member asked about the town of Otis being included in the RSU, pointing out that the Otis Interim Superintendent was in the audience. Varnum then acknowledged the Otis Superintendent and asked if he would like to address the group. Whereupon, the Otis Superintendent stated Otis would also like to be included as a partner in the RSU to be formed with SAD 63 and the other aforementioned potential partners. (This is a turn-around from as recent as last Sunday night when this writer had a long conversation with the Chair of the Otis School Board.) As a result of this announcement, Varnum stated SAD 63 would file TWO Letters of Intent – one including Otis as a potential partner, and one excluding Otis. After two town votes, it is obvious Otis does not want to join the RSU with Ellsworth and their Interim Superintendent is working to find a solution that will respect the wishes and interest of that towns constituents.
Members of the Clifton Selectmen stood and officially requested Karen Clark, rep from Eddington, be appointed as the Clifton school board alternative to the RPC (and Team Clifton RPC). It was approved.
And those were the major points (and surprises) from the School Board meeting Monday night.
*****
Eddington Public Hearing and Selectmen Meeting Tuesday night:
The first 45 minutes of the meeting were devoted to the Public Hearing to discuss the application by Fire Chief Ellis for a federal SAFER Grant via Homeland Security. This grant, if awarded, would fund a full-time firefighter position Monday-Friday (40 hours a week) for both salary and benefits for two years. The one major local requirement is that Eddington would have to commit to maintain and pay the position for one year following the completion of the grant. This is estimated to cost Eddington taxpayers approximately $47,546 at that time.
While there were only five members from the public in attendance for the Public Hearing (in addition to the full Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager, Chief Ellis, and Firefight Russell), there were numerous questions regarding the benefits to the town regarding insurance ratings, budgeting in advance, and how the townspeople could be assured of the specific line item identification on the cost of the position for any subsequent years.
It is expected that much of this information will be repeated on Tuesday, December 15 (promptly at 6pm) when this matter will be presented at a Special Town Meeting for a vote. Chief Ellis is preparing the grant proposal at this time because the deadline for the grant application is December 18. The results of the December 15th vote will determine whether or not he can mail the application.
Following the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Board of Selectmen proceeded to a regular Board meeting which had a very short agenda…
The “surprise” came under Unfinished Business. First the Board dealt with The Forestry Lane Road Approval which involved approving the road being constructed, in part by the University of Maine once certain work was completed. Of note – two members of the board abstained from voting on the matter for reasons that would have constituted a Conflict of Interest. The other three voted unanimously for Approval.
And then….it seemed the Board “needed to rescind the unanimous vote” it had taken at the November 24th meeting at which Ralph Russell was named the representative of the Board and this writer was named the town’s citizen to the RPC. The reason? Because the Selectmen had never terminated the town’s RPC for the old RSU (remember the one voted on nearly a year ago and turned down) – and therefore, that was the RPC of standing - because the Board had never "terminated" the RPC after the RSU was voted down. (By any chance do you suppose this, too, was a topic in those numerous telephone conversations between November 25 and November 30? And the Board didn’t know about this "rule" before November 24? And who made this rule? Oh well, c’est la.)
The motion was made and seconded and passed unanimously without discussion, comment or courtesy. Therefore Team Eddington is now: Charles Baker, Eddington Selectman, and Ralph Russell, citizen representative. Surprise #3 for the week.
Was there any advance warning of any of these “changes?” Just one. Surprise #1, following a comment I heard in the Clifton Town Office Monday afternoon when I was told that someone (I don’t know who) had remarked, “Eddington and Clifton need to stay out of SAD 63 business.”
Could that have been a threat or was someone feeling only Holden was behaving “properly?” Of course, Holden has been the primary beneficiary of the taxpayers’ “donations” in recent years.
While I didn’t follow up the remark (who said it and when) at that time, I did make one phone call and as a result knew, in advance, of Surprise #1.
However, on reflection, I think all three “surprises” were good ones – beneficial to all, and certainly to this writer and maybe to the readers of this blog in days to come.
And now, there are Christmas gifts to finish making and wrapping and mailing. And a house to decorate, and cards to address and mail, etc., etc., etc. The rain is ending and the sun is coming out. Perhaps in more ways than one. Enjoy.
The SAD 63 School Board meeting Monday night had a few.
It seems lots of telephone conversations took place after the Nov. 24th joint meeting of the Clifton and Eddington Boards of Selectmen where a quorum of both Boards voted unanimously to oppose the transfer of parcel #2 at the Holden School to the Town of Holden. At the end of that meeting, Eddington’s Town Manager was directed to (1) write up the letter affirming the vote for the appropriate signatures, (2) fax it to Clifton for signing and return and then (3) hand deliver the signed letter to the school district’s central office on Monday November 30th.
The direction then was to have the letter read into the official record at the SAD 63 Board meeting Monday night when representatives from both towns’ Board of Selectmen would be in attendance to affirm the contents of the letter. BUT, Surprise #1 – by Monday the two Boards had changed their collective minds and spoke in support of the transfer at the school board meeting. And so the school board voted accordingly and the deed was done.
Reportedly the Release Deed, when it is written, has been instructed to carry language that the land shall (or maybe the language will just say “will”, which does not carry the same legally mandatory weight as the word “shall) stay in some form of a Public Trust, and that the land will (shall?) be transferred back to the school should there be a need of the school for the land, such as for an expansion of the septic system.
The "Back story" to this 180 degree change of events seems related to at least two (maybe more) after-the-fact “influences”: (A) Therese Anderson, rep from Eddington, announced to one of the Selectmen in advance of the school board meting she would be voting for the transfer of the land at the Board meeting. (Therese did not attend the joint meeting of the Selectmen although she was informed of the meeting. She reportedly had a work conflict.)
During my conversation with the party who forewarned me of the Boards change of position, I heard the oft-used justification that the school board is an elected (and “independent”) body. The inference to that kind of thinking is that it does not need to listen to or be concerned with the positions or opinions of the townspeople (or elected governing bodies) from towns which comprise the school district. Of course I have heard directly on at least three different occasions from Interim Superintendent Hart and School Chairman Varnum that "the land belongs to the school board and we can do with it as we choose."
Readers should remember that it was Anderson who stepped in and stopped Varnum from trying to slide through a vote on transferring parcel #2 at the October board meeting. Perhaps there has been some “restructuring” of Anderson’s independence in the past month.
The (B) “influence”: At least one of the Selectmen still seemed to think that sections of the old RSU (that was voted down intact) still apply. Therefore the old section that stated …should a school be selected for closure, all property attached to that school (and by inference – the land) could be sold by the new RSU Board. Applying that language to the Holden School defies logic, as has been explained with numerous reasons in previous postings. But individuals from Holden (Selectmen and members of the school board) have repeatedly used it to try to push this land deal for the last nine months. Apparently they were successful. And with Holden's four votes on the School Board and Anderson's vote - the deed would have been done regardless. So, it appears it is better to be on the side that is going to win rather than the side that is right.
However, (just for reference) until the New Regional Planning Committee (RPC) actually convenes and reaffirms any sections of the Old RSU documents, the sections do not currently apply and are not legally binding at this time.
Surprise #2: Varnum reported his meeting November 17th with a representative from the Commissioner of Education’s office, the School Board chairs from Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8, and Otis. He indicated that SAD 63 would be submitting a Letter of Intent to the Commissioner requesting the Commissioner’s approval of the formation of an RSU that would include Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8 and SAD 63.
At that point, a school board member asked about the town of Otis being included in the RSU, pointing out that the Otis Interim Superintendent was in the audience. Varnum then acknowledged the Otis Superintendent and asked if he would like to address the group. Whereupon, the Otis Superintendent stated Otis would also like to be included as a partner in the RSU to be formed with SAD 63 and the other aforementioned potential partners. (This is a turn-around from as recent as last Sunday night when this writer had a long conversation with the Chair of the Otis School Board.) As a result of this announcement, Varnum stated SAD 63 would file TWO Letters of Intent – one including Otis as a potential partner, and one excluding Otis. After two town votes, it is obvious Otis does not want to join the RSU with Ellsworth and their Interim Superintendent is working to find a solution that will respect the wishes and interest of that towns constituents.
Members of the Clifton Selectmen stood and officially requested Karen Clark, rep from Eddington, be appointed as the Clifton school board alternative to the RPC (and Team Clifton RPC). It was approved.
And those were the major points (and surprises) from the School Board meeting Monday night.
*****
Eddington Public Hearing and Selectmen Meeting Tuesday night:
The first 45 minutes of the meeting were devoted to the Public Hearing to discuss the application by Fire Chief Ellis for a federal SAFER Grant via Homeland Security. This grant, if awarded, would fund a full-time firefighter position Monday-Friday (40 hours a week) for both salary and benefits for two years. The one major local requirement is that Eddington would have to commit to maintain and pay the position for one year following the completion of the grant. This is estimated to cost Eddington taxpayers approximately $47,546 at that time.
While there were only five members from the public in attendance for the Public Hearing (in addition to the full Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager, Chief Ellis, and Firefight Russell), there were numerous questions regarding the benefits to the town regarding insurance ratings, budgeting in advance, and how the townspeople could be assured of the specific line item identification on the cost of the position for any subsequent years.
It is expected that much of this information will be repeated on Tuesday, December 15 (promptly at 6pm) when this matter will be presented at a Special Town Meeting for a vote. Chief Ellis is preparing the grant proposal at this time because the deadline for the grant application is December 18. The results of the December 15th vote will determine whether or not he can mail the application.
Following the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Board of Selectmen proceeded to a regular Board meeting which had a very short agenda…
The “surprise” came under Unfinished Business. First the Board dealt with The Forestry Lane Road Approval which involved approving the road being constructed, in part by the University of Maine once certain work was completed. Of note – two members of the board abstained from voting on the matter for reasons that would have constituted a Conflict of Interest. The other three voted unanimously for Approval.
And then….it seemed the Board “needed to rescind the unanimous vote” it had taken at the November 24th meeting at which Ralph Russell was named the representative of the Board and this writer was named the town’s citizen to the RPC. The reason? Because the Selectmen had never terminated the town’s RPC for the old RSU (remember the one voted on nearly a year ago and turned down) – and therefore, that was the RPC of standing - because the Board had never "terminated" the RPC after the RSU was voted down. (By any chance do you suppose this, too, was a topic in those numerous telephone conversations between November 25 and November 30? And the Board didn’t know about this "rule" before November 24? And who made this rule? Oh well, c’est la.)
The motion was made and seconded and passed unanimously without discussion, comment or courtesy. Therefore Team Eddington is now: Charles Baker, Eddington Selectman, and Ralph Russell, citizen representative. Surprise #3 for the week.
Was there any advance warning of any of these “changes?” Just one. Surprise #1, following a comment I heard in the Clifton Town Office Monday afternoon when I was told that someone (I don’t know who) had remarked, “Eddington and Clifton need to stay out of SAD 63 business.”
Could that have been a threat or was someone feeling only Holden was behaving “properly?” Of course, Holden has been the primary beneficiary of the taxpayers’ “donations” in recent years.
While I didn’t follow up the remark (who said it and when) at that time, I did make one phone call and as a result knew, in advance, of Surprise #1.
However, on reflection, I think all three “surprises” were good ones – beneficial to all, and certainly to this writer and maybe to the readers of this blog in days to come.
And now, there are Christmas gifts to finish making and wrapping and mailing. And a house to decorate, and cards to address and mail, etc., etc., etc. The rain is ending and the sun is coming out. Perhaps in more ways than one. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
