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.