Brian Glass and Chip Grover were absent. Since the other three were present, a quorum enabled the Board to proceed with the meeting and the evening's agenda.
Not a lot to report although there were some interesting moments. Fire Chief Ellis stated he was working on the Fire Contract (I believe with Clifton) and there was a request for $1,500 which was approved to complete piecing together funds for a Tower Study where a repeater will be installed in the U.S. Cellular structure which will improve response communications for Clifton and Eddington. There had been an article regarding the matter in the BDN on Monday.
Deputy Daren Mason was in attendance and he said overall incidents were down, although (I believe) he reported 91 incidents for the past month. He did say that Eddington and Clifton drivers were not the people being stopped for speeding. Guess we must have a lot of "through traffic" in a hurry to get-on-somewhere else.
Karen Clark gave a report of the School Board meeting the previous evening and there was a discussion re: the Holden Town Deed/Land transfer from the Holden Elementary School. More information re: the school board meeting can be found in the previous posting so I won't repeat it here. Russell Smith mentioned that Interim Superintendent Ray Hart had walked over the Release Deed that morning so that the Selectmen would have copies for the meeting that night. Since Karen still hadn't received a copy of the Release Deed (which Russell then made for her) and the Selectmen hadn't had time to read or review, their votes were tabled to their next meeting.
After some discussion re: how long it will be before any new RSU or AOS school board could be up and operational (see previous posting), the Selectmen decided to rescind their previous vote to just extend Karen's term through June and to have her go through the official process of running for her (incumbent) seat on the school board. This writer has to wonder how any local Board of Selectmen who are a separate government entity have the legal authority to deny the voters the right to vote/elect their representative on a totally separate government board. The Selectmen do have the authority to appoint an elected representative on the school board should that person not be able to fulfill their duly elected term, BUT does the Board of Selectmen have the legal authority to deny the voters to vote for their representative when the existing incumbent's term has expired and the position is up for election - no matter for the length of time? Not that it would have required any additional town costs since we need to be electing at least one (I believe TWO) Selectmen anyway - at the same time.
Anyway, Karen Clark is now gathering the required candidate signatures. And this writer is also collecting signatures for her. You can contact either of us via this blog or at home to arrange times to sign if you wish. Signatures need to be turned in by February 12th. This writer will be carrying the form around as I go to the Post Office, Tradewinds, the Eddington Store and around the neighborhoods.
Charles Baker is also collecting signatures for his candidacy for Selectman.
The law suit between the Oak Grove Homeowner Assoc. vs. the Town of Eddington has been settled with the Town of Eddington prevailing.
Libby's Junkyard permit was the subject of a "Public Hearing" at the opening of the meeting. Since no one was there to speak one way or the other, the issue was automatically approved. Seems the young couple that originally wanted to open the 300 car junkyard next to the New Hope Hospice last year (and were turned down because that site is not zoned commercial regarding of what the "For Sale" sign says) and then went down to Libby's for some kind of joint-venture have moved on. It's strictly Libby's now.
Russell passed around a draft of what next year's budget may look like. The numbers aren't final yet - some may go lower. However, at the moment, the total is only about $25,000. higher than last year. BUT it seems the State with its fiscal woes is reportedly going to cut back about $40,000. in revenue sharing from the town AND there is a possibility that Homestead Exemptions may be eliminated this coming year. Thank you, Augusta. Remember that the governor said in his State of the State address a little of a week ago that there were no new taxes! Stated he wouldn't sign any new legislation that involved new taxes to balance the State's deficit... Wonder what he thinks our higher property taxes are when the State doesn't pay its portion of the school budget or cuts the revenue sharing or eliminate Homestead Exemptions. From this property taxpayer's POV, looks like and smells like and feels the heck like NEW TAXES.
By the way, be sure to read the posting that precedes the School Board posting - it's about the attempt to eliminate local voting rights to approve/disapprove proposed local school budgets - LD1739. That issue may appear to be defeated but read the article all the way through and then send out some emails (addresses are provided). Augusta rides again and they're riding over our rights (what few remain).
The Board also needed to appoint someone locally to sit on the SAD 63 Financial Advisory Committee. This seems to only happen when the School Board is getting close to developing its next year budget. Although some members of the Selectmen didn't seem to think the School Board paid too much attention to the community people or the Financial Advisory Committee, they automatically appointed Ralph Russell to the committee. Ralph was on the committee last year. This writer thinks he may have been the chair at that time, although I seem to recall he said then that he wouldn't do it again. I haven't seen Ralph at any School Board meetings in the past year but he may have been at the December meeting since it is the one I missed.
The Selectmen's meeting was over before 7pm.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
THE JAN. 25 SAD 63 SCHOOL BOARD MEETING - THERE'S A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN. YIPPEE
Six out of the eight elected school board members were in attendance for Monday night's Board meeting. Chris Fickett from Clifton and Mario Teisl from Holden were absent.
Therese Anderson, the Vice Chair, from Eddington was elected Chair with no dissenting votes. Once it was understood that Mario Teisl from Holden had said had the Budget and Finance Committee (rescheduled to the night following its scheduled date because of the storm) he would be willing to serve as Vice Chair, he was elected to that position with no dissenting votes.
The answers to the 2007-2008 Audit Questions which a group of citizens had submitted in October were provided in the Budget and Finance Committee report. They were also mailed to the members of that group on Friday, Jan. 22 and will be provided, along with the associated questions, in a posting next week. The answers are currently under review by members of the group and individuals outside the group at this time.
Before the Minutes for the Regular Meeting conducted December 21, 2009 could be approved, two important corrections needed to be made.
(ONE) Although the Minutes refelected that Jackie Smallwood from Holden, who had been appointed by that town's Board of Selectmen to be the citizen representative on the Regional Planning Committee, had read a letter to the School Board at the December 21 meeting during which she resigned from that position, the Minutes failed to reflect that (former) Chairman Don Varnum had stopped her from finishing the letter. (She had not been allowed to finish explaining her reasons, reportedly because she was not willing to rubber stamp whatever the Chairs and Superintendents decided behind closed doors and in secret meetings). The Minutes were directed to include that she was not allowed to complete her statements before the Board.
(TWO) It was brought to the Board's attention that Board Member Mario Teisl had not (prior to January 25, 2010) completed the required training in the Freedom of Access Act since taking office in 2008. This is required of elected officials, including School Board members. Therefore the Minutes during that period needed to be reviewed and all of his votes during 2008 and 2009 needed to be cast out. Any votes that only passed by one vote during that time will have to be brought back to the Board for a re-vote. With those corrections made, the Minutes were passed.
At the opening of the meeting, this writer asked (during the "Questions and Comments from the Public") what was being done regarding any formation of a Regional School Union (RSU) or meeting of the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) and when was the SAD 63 Board planning to do something regarding that issue since the evening's agenda showed the RSU Consolidation Planning Committee "TBD" (To Be Determined). New Chairwoman Anderson said she would provide a full answer to that question when the meeting got to that issue on the agenda. The following is what was said at that time:
As has been posted previously on this blog, the understood intent of the SAD 63 Board was that the "partners" for the new RSU would be Eddington, Clifton Holden (SAD 63), Airline/CSD 8, Dedham and Orrington. Then Otis came to the SAD 63 Board several months ago and stated they would like to join the RSU as well. Believing that the more communities in the RSU (the broader the base) the better the tax burden for all, the majority of the SAD 63 Board agreed to include Otis. (It should be remembered that the current legislation requires a student population for a qualifying RSU to equal 1200 students. This number does not include students attending any high school outside the RSU. None of these proposed partners have a high school AND all of the partner towns currently have the option of choice as to which high school the students can attend.)
Apparently none of the proposed partners wanted to meet and discuss any aspect of what the potential RSU might include before the election last November since there was the possibility that consolidation might be repealed (and many of us hoped it would be - even though there was next to no money for that campaign). After the repeal effort failed, there was a meeting on November 17 (previously posted) at the Holbrook Middle School which was attended by the Chairs of the Orrington School Board, SAD 63, Dedham, Airline/CSD 8, and Otis, as well as the Superintendents of SAD 63, Orrington and Dedham, and a representative from the Commissioner of Education's office. (If you want more details of that meeting, screen down on the blog for that posting.) The Bottom Line was that there were supposedly going to be Letters of Intent filed with the Commissioner (requesting permission to form an RSU) by SAD 63, Airline/CSD 8, Dedham and Orrington. One of the "sticklers" here was that Orrington (and maybe Dedham, who knows) didn't want Otis in this RSU and Otis was being urged to join the RSU in Ellsworth, even though the voters in Otis had voted twice that they did not want to join the Ellsworth RSU.
Dedham said they would be having their School Board meeting by the end of November - Orrington by the first of December and they would have to get their Board's decisions/votes to file their Letters at that time. However, everyone at SAD 63 and Airline/CSD 8 was reportedly of the opinion they were going to file those letters.
Another (reported) "stickler" (of many so it seems) is that during the November 17 meeting there was some kind of "understanding" between those in attendance that the citizen reps from the RPC teams would be eliminated - that the RSU plan would be designed by the school board reps and town selectmen reps only.
[You readers should know that at that time, this writer was the duly appointed citizen rep from Eddington RPC - and replaced a week later, as reported in another posting by the previous citizen rep, Ralph Russell, from the original RPC since the Eddington Selectmen said they had to use the same reps from the original RPC. Anyway, during the week when I was the rep, I did send an email to the school board chairs of those potential partners for whom I was able to obtain an email address (didn't have all of them but I did have the one for Orrington). I knew at that time the citizen reps for all three towns in SAD 63 had been appointed and I stated in the email I did not believe that the attempt by those school board chairs and superintentdents to remove the citizen reps would go over well - AT ALL. Apparently the Orrington Chair took offense at such independence. Wonder what he would have thought of Jackie's two-page letter?]
When the SAD 63 School Board met at the end of November, the Interim Superintendent from Otis was in attendance and was able to speak. And when the SAD 63 Board voted to submit its Letter of Intent to the Commissioner, it decided to submit two letters - one that included Otis, and one that did not. The Commissioner approved both letter. Airline/CSD 8 and Otis submitted their Letters of Intent, as well. And they were approved. So far so good. But then there was a snag.
It seems that Dedham and Orrington had a bit of a meeting of their own, the result of which was that those two school board submitted Letters of Intent stating they wanted to form an RSU with just two partners - each other. Orrington and Dedham combined will not meet the 1200 student requirement. So, if the Commissioner approves their letters, which must be done within twelve days and we are currently within that time period, it will be an exception to the current law. At the same time, those two school boards have indicated that if their letters are not approved, they are willing and able to accept the tax penalty that will go into effect for their towns July 1, 2010. For how many years Orrington and Dedham voters are willing to accept that penalty is unknown. But it will impact the property taxes of the people in those two towns.
That, pretty much summed up Chair Anderson's presentation of the situation. At which point some spontanteous brainstorming began - or at least some sharing of ideas between some of the SAD 63 board members and some of the citizens in attendance. (BTW, we had the best showing of people - not selectmen - in attendance that this writer has seen for more than a year. Good job, people.) Out of that discussion came the following:
The SAD 63 Chair will work with Interim Superintendent Hart to prepare and send out a Letter of Invitation to all potential partners for their RPC teams to meet (and that includes Orrington and Dedham) to discuss how this RSU - or maybe an AOS - could work. The December letter from Commissioner Gendron is no longer considered a guide, therefore, all partners are urged to send a FULL RPC TEAM (meaning citizen/community reps as well as school board reps and selectmen reps). The Consolidation Planning Committee that shows up will be planning how the RSU - or AOS - will work and that includes the composition of the final School Board. Perhaps, at some point, Orrington or Dedham will change their mind and want to join the work of the Consolidation Planning Committee. This writer expects they will be welcome. However, just as Airline/CSD 8 learned the last time around, last ones to the table have to accept the work already done by those who were there from the beginning.
At the same time, SAD 63 Chair Anderson will be sending a letter to the Commissioner asking, if only three of the partners "want to play" and two do not, how would the Commission propose the three players proceed? (Under the law, it is the responsibility of the Commissioner to provide guidance to the players.) This situation, and/or a copy of this letter, will also be sent to our Legislative representatives - Senator Richard Rosen from Bucksport and Representative Ben Pratt from Eddington. These legislative represenatives should know that the players should not be subject to the tax penalties just because of Orrington and Dedham even if that means that the three players do not have the necessary 1200 students. (Residents of Eddington, Clifton and Holden should be writing to Senator Rosen and Representative Pratt as well. If they don't help us get that penalty waived, we will be sharing a $167,000 penalty come July 1, 2010. And at this date, getting started means we will NOT be ready by July 1. The soonest Chairwoman Anderson estimates we can be up and operating will be February 2011.)
Under the agenda's "Old Business" came the never-ending Holden Town Deed/Land Transfer issue. Don Varnum made the motion that the Board sign the Release Deed for parcel #2 transferring the final parcel from the Holden School over to the Town of Holden. Sylvia Ellis from Holden seconded the motion. However, before the vote, Karen Clark from Eddington pointed out that the agreement for the transfer included that the Release Deed, once prepared, was to have been sent to the Boards of Selectmen in both Clifton and Eddington for final review. Karen had talked with a member from the Clifton Board before Monday's meeting who had advised Karen the Clifton Board had not as yet seen the Release Deed. (Apparently neither had the Eddington Board of Selectmen.) Additionally, there were no copies of the Release Deed in any of the school board members' preparatory packets for board members to have reviewed prior to their vote. After discussion Chairwoman Anderson stated the matter needed to be deferred for a month. She then asked Ellis to withdraw her second (to Varnum's motion). It seemed like three to four seconds before Ellis could do that, but she did. Then, looking to Varnum to see if he would withdraw his motion, we all watched and waited. The withdrawal was not immediate but it did come, with the comment, "Reluctantly." Why anyone should be reluctant to do the right thing boggles the mind. But the Chair made it clear that the process would be done in the right and proper manner and that, alone, was refreshing and reassuring. All the more reason to believe that any process directed toward an RSU or AOS will be better this time around.
This writer will say that it was the most constructive and productive school board meeting this writer has attended in nearly two years. And credit needs to be given to Chairwoman Anderson who is inclusive of her Board and the citizens, showing everyone professional consideration and courtesy while providing the information which heretofor has been negligable. At the same time there is no indication that business will be conducted in any manner less than legal and right. One could literally smell the fresh air in the room.
There will be a Budget and Finance Committee meeting February 10 at 5pm at the Holbrook School. Note the earlier time for this meeting.
There will be an Operations Committee meeting on February 22 at 5:45pm at the Holbrook School.
There will be a Technology Committee meeting on February 9 at 6pm at the Holbrook School.
The next Policy Committee meeting will be in March. There is a plan to put all policies up on the web and that will be one of the issues discussed at the Operations Committee meeting.
No other Committee meetings were scheduled.
An Executive Session followed the regular School Board meeting, the topic of which was discussion of teacher contract negotiations. One can only hope that everyone realizes there is no more money for anyone. The projected state deficit by November 2010 is $1,000,000,000.00 (that's Billion with a "B"). The state is already talking about eliminating the Homestead exemption. Augusta is projected to reduce the allocation to Eddington by another $40,000.00. People need to see what the reduction will be for Holden and Clifton. There will be more education cuts from Augusta.
This writer hopes the Board will soon begin discussing recruitment proceedings for an Interim Superintendent - perhaps contacting the current Interim Superintendent at Otis would be both cost beneficial and helpful with any RSU/AOS discussions.
This writer also hopes the recruitment process will soon begin for a new Business Manager and at a more reasonable salary/benefit package commensurate with the size of the district. It should be remembered that the individual who held the Business Manager's position prior to former superintendent Regan did the payroll in house (saving $6,500.00 annually), did not have additional part-time help, was in the office 40 hours a week, and received less than one-half of the salary being paid to the current Business Manager. And she had the financial records and business books ready for the annual audit long before December (when the fiscal year ends June 30). She may not have had a CPA degree but she got the job done and on time; the taxpayers certainly got more cost accountability. And they didn't have to pay any "$5,000 bonuses" either.
Therese Anderson, the Vice Chair, from Eddington was elected Chair with no dissenting votes. Once it was understood that Mario Teisl from Holden had said had the Budget and Finance Committee (rescheduled to the night following its scheduled date because of the storm) he would be willing to serve as Vice Chair, he was elected to that position with no dissenting votes.
The answers to the 2007-2008 Audit Questions which a group of citizens had submitted in October were provided in the Budget and Finance Committee report. They were also mailed to the members of that group on Friday, Jan. 22 and will be provided, along with the associated questions, in a posting next week. The answers are currently under review by members of the group and individuals outside the group at this time.
Before the Minutes for the Regular Meeting conducted December 21, 2009 could be approved, two important corrections needed to be made.
(ONE) Although the Minutes refelected that Jackie Smallwood from Holden, who had been appointed by that town's Board of Selectmen to be the citizen representative on the Regional Planning Committee, had read a letter to the School Board at the December 21 meeting during which she resigned from that position, the Minutes failed to reflect that (former) Chairman Don Varnum had stopped her from finishing the letter. (She had not been allowed to finish explaining her reasons, reportedly because she was not willing to rubber stamp whatever the Chairs and Superintendents decided behind closed doors and in secret meetings). The Minutes were directed to include that she was not allowed to complete her statements before the Board.
(TWO) It was brought to the Board's attention that Board Member Mario Teisl had not (prior to January 25, 2010) completed the required training in the Freedom of Access Act since taking office in 2008. This is required of elected officials, including School Board members. Therefore the Minutes during that period needed to be reviewed and all of his votes during 2008 and 2009 needed to be cast out. Any votes that only passed by one vote during that time will have to be brought back to the Board for a re-vote. With those corrections made, the Minutes were passed.
At the opening of the meeting, this writer asked (during the "Questions and Comments from the Public") what was being done regarding any formation of a Regional School Union (RSU) or meeting of the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) and when was the SAD 63 Board planning to do something regarding that issue since the evening's agenda showed the RSU Consolidation Planning Committee "TBD" (To Be Determined). New Chairwoman Anderson said she would provide a full answer to that question when the meeting got to that issue on the agenda. The following is what was said at that time:
As has been posted previously on this blog, the understood intent of the SAD 63 Board was that the "partners" for the new RSU would be Eddington, Clifton Holden (SAD 63), Airline/CSD 8, Dedham and Orrington. Then Otis came to the SAD 63 Board several months ago and stated they would like to join the RSU as well. Believing that the more communities in the RSU (the broader the base) the better the tax burden for all, the majority of the SAD 63 Board agreed to include Otis. (It should be remembered that the current legislation requires a student population for a qualifying RSU to equal 1200 students. This number does not include students attending any high school outside the RSU. None of these proposed partners have a high school AND all of the partner towns currently have the option of choice as to which high school the students can attend.)
Apparently none of the proposed partners wanted to meet and discuss any aspect of what the potential RSU might include before the election last November since there was the possibility that consolidation might be repealed (and many of us hoped it would be - even though there was next to no money for that campaign). After the repeal effort failed, there was a meeting on November 17 (previously posted) at the Holbrook Middle School which was attended by the Chairs of the Orrington School Board, SAD 63, Dedham, Airline/CSD 8, and Otis, as well as the Superintendents of SAD 63, Orrington and Dedham, and a representative from the Commissioner of Education's office. (If you want more details of that meeting, screen down on the blog for that posting.) The Bottom Line was that there were supposedly going to be Letters of Intent filed with the Commissioner (requesting permission to form an RSU) by SAD 63, Airline/CSD 8, Dedham and Orrington. One of the "sticklers" here was that Orrington (and maybe Dedham, who knows) didn't want Otis in this RSU and Otis was being urged to join the RSU in Ellsworth, even though the voters in Otis had voted twice that they did not want to join the Ellsworth RSU.
Dedham said they would be having their School Board meeting by the end of November - Orrington by the first of December and they would have to get their Board's decisions/votes to file their Letters at that time. However, everyone at SAD 63 and Airline/CSD 8 was reportedly of the opinion they were going to file those letters.
Another (reported) "stickler" (of many so it seems) is that during the November 17 meeting there was some kind of "understanding" between those in attendance that the citizen reps from the RPC teams would be eliminated - that the RSU plan would be designed by the school board reps and town selectmen reps only.
[You readers should know that at that time, this writer was the duly appointed citizen rep from Eddington RPC - and replaced a week later, as reported in another posting by the previous citizen rep, Ralph Russell, from the original RPC since the Eddington Selectmen said they had to use the same reps from the original RPC. Anyway, during the week when I was the rep, I did send an email to the school board chairs of those potential partners for whom I was able to obtain an email address (didn't have all of them but I did have the one for Orrington). I knew at that time the citizen reps for all three towns in SAD 63 had been appointed and I stated in the email I did not believe that the attempt by those school board chairs and superintentdents to remove the citizen reps would go over well - AT ALL. Apparently the Orrington Chair took offense at such independence. Wonder what he would have thought of Jackie's two-page letter?]
When the SAD 63 School Board met at the end of November, the Interim Superintendent from Otis was in attendance and was able to speak. And when the SAD 63 Board voted to submit its Letter of Intent to the Commissioner, it decided to submit two letters - one that included Otis, and one that did not. The Commissioner approved both letter. Airline/CSD 8 and Otis submitted their Letters of Intent, as well. And they were approved. So far so good. But then there was a snag.
It seems that Dedham and Orrington had a bit of a meeting of their own, the result of which was that those two school board submitted Letters of Intent stating they wanted to form an RSU with just two partners - each other. Orrington and Dedham combined will not meet the 1200 student requirement. So, if the Commissioner approves their letters, which must be done within twelve days and we are currently within that time period, it will be an exception to the current law. At the same time, those two school boards have indicated that if their letters are not approved, they are willing and able to accept the tax penalty that will go into effect for their towns July 1, 2010. For how many years Orrington and Dedham voters are willing to accept that penalty is unknown. But it will impact the property taxes of the people in those two towns.
That, pretty much summed up Chair Anderson's presentation of the situation. At which point some spontanteous brainstorming began - or at least some sharing of ideas between some of the SAD 63 board members and some of the citizens in attendance. (BTW, we had the best showing of people - not selectmen - in attendance that this writer has seen for more than a year. Good job, people.) Out of that discussion came the following:
The SAD 63 Chair will work with Interim Superintendent Hart to prepare and send out a Letter of Invitation to all potential partners for their RPC teams to meet (and that includes Orrington and Dedham) to discuss how this RSU - or maybe an AOS - could work. The December letter from Commissioner Gendron is no longer considered a guide, therefore, all partners are urged to send a FULL RPC TEAM (meaning citizen/community reps as well as school board reps and selectmen reps). The Consolidation Planning Committee that shows up will be planning how the RSU - or AOS - will work and that includes the composition of the final School Board. Perhaps, at some point, Orrington or Dedham will change their mind and want to join the work of the Consolidation Planning Committee. This writer expects they will be welcome. However, just as Airline/CSD 8 learned the last time around, last ones to the table have to accept the work already done by those who were there from the beginning.
At the same time, SAD 63 Chair Anderson will be sending a letter to the Commissioner asking, if only three of the partners "want to play" and two do not, how would the Commission propose the three players proceed? (Under the law, it is the responsibility of the Commissioner to provide guidance to the players.) This situation, and/or a copy of this letter, will also be sent to our Legislative representatives - Senator Richard Rosen from Bucksport and Representative Ben Pratt from Eddington. These legislative represenatives should know that the players should not be subject to the tax penalties just because of Orrington and Dedham even if that means that the three players do not have the necessary 1200 students. (Residents of Eddington, Clifton and Holden should be writing to Senator Rosen and Representative Pratt as well. If they don't help us get that penalty waived, we will be sharing a $167,000 penalty come July 1, 2010. And at this date, getting started means we will NOT be ready by July 1. The soonest Chairwoman Anderson estimates we can be up and operating will be February 2011.)
Under the agenda's "Old Business" came the never-ending Holden Town Deed/Land Transfer issue. Don Varnum made the motion that the Board sign the Release Deed for parcel #2 transferring the final parcel from the Holden School over to the Town of Holden. Sylvia Ellis from Holden seconded the motion. However, before the vote, Karen Clark from Eddington pointed out that the agreement for the transfer included that the Release Deed, once prepared, was to have been sent to the Boards of Selectmen in both Clifton and Eddington for final review. Karen had talked with a member from the Clifton Board before Monday's meeting who had advised Karen the Clifton Board had not as yet seen the Release Deed. (Apparently neither had the Eddington Board of Selectmen.) Additionally, there were no copies of the Release Deed in any of the school board members' preparatory packets for board members to have reviewed prior to their vote. After discussion Chairwoman Anderson stated the matter needed to be deferred for a month. She then asked Ellis to withdraw her second (to Varnum's motion). It seemed like three to four seconds before Ellis could do that, but she did. Then, looking to Varnum to see if he would withdraw his motion, we all watched and waited. The withdrawal was not immediate but it did come, with the comment, "Reluctantly." Why anyone should be reluctant to do the right thing boggles the mind. But the Chair made it clear that the process would be done in the right and proper manner and that, alone, was refreshing and reassuring. All the more reason to believe that any process directed toward an RSU or AOS will be better this time around.
This writer will say that it was the most constructive and productive school board meeting this writer has attended in nearly two years. And credit needs to be given to Chairwoman Anderson who is inclusive of her Board and the citizens, showing everyone professional consideration and courtesy while providing the information which heretofor has been negligable. At the same time there is no indication that business will be conducted in any manner less than legal and right. One could literally smell the fresh air in the room.
There will be a Budget and Finance Committee meeting February 10 at 5pm at the Holbrook School. Note the earlier time for this meeting.
There will be an Operations Committee meeting on February 22 at 5:45pm at the Holbrook School.
There will be a Technology Committee meeting on February 9 at 6pm at the Holbrook School.
The next Policy Committee meeting will be in March. There is a plan to put all policies up on the web and that will be one of the issues discussed at the Operations Committee meeting.
No other Committee meetings were scheduled.
An Executive Session followed the regular School Board meeting, the topic of which was discussion of teacher contract negotiations. One can only hope that everyone realizes there is no more money for anyone. The projected state deficit by November 2010 is $1,000,000,000.00 (that's Billion with a "B"). The state is already talking about eliminating the Homestead exemption. Augusta is projected to reduce the allocation to Eddington by another $40,000.00. People need to see what the reduction will be for Holden and Clifton. There will be more education cuts from Augusta.
This writer hopes the Board will soon begin discussing recruitment proceedings for an Interim Superintendent - perhaps contacting the current Interim Superintendent at Otis would be both cost beneficial and helpful with any RSU/AOS discussions.
This writer also hopes the recruitment process will soon begin for a new Business Manager and at a more reasonable salary/benefit package commensurate with the size of the district. It should be remembered that the individual who held the Business Manager's position prior to former superintendent Regan did the payroll in house (saving $6,500.00 annually), did not have additional part-time help, was in the office 40 hours a week, and received less than one-half of the salary being paid to the current Business Manager. And she had the financial records and business books ready for the annual audit long before December (when the fiscal year ends June 30). She may not have had a CPA degree but she got the job done and on time; the taxpayers certainly got more cost accountability. And they didn't have to pay any "$5,000 bonuses" either.
THE MAINE LEGISLATURE'S LATEST ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE LOCAL VOTING RIGHTS ON LOCAL SCHOOL BUDGETS
The following is a reprint of an email this writer received this week from the Maine Heritage Policy Center. It pertains to the Maine Legislature's most recent attempt to take away our local voting authority over our local school district's proposed annual budget. Every Maine voter needs to start calling and emailing the Legislature's Education Committee members immediately and continue to follow this issue through the elections in November. Failure to defeat LD1739, or any inclusion of it in any omnibus education bill will be disastrous to local property taxes.
*****
When politicians try to undermine our liberties, The Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) and its members take action. Yesterday, (Monday the 25th) at a public hearing before the Legislature's Education Committee, we showed that we will fight for your rights, and that we won't back down. LD 1739: "An Act To Remove the Requirement That the Annual Budget of a Regional School Unit Must Be Approved at a Budget Validation Referendum," would have stripped away your right to a referendum vote on local school budgets-yet another ploy by politicians to silence the citizens and taxpayers of Maine.
MHPC learned about the public hearing for this bill last Friday, leaving only the weekend to make our voices heard. But that didn't stop us. We immediately issued a call to action encouraging Mainers to contact the bill's sponsors demanding they stop trying to take away your right to vote. It worked. Hundreds of e-mails were sent by Maine citizens across the state.
Over the weekend, the bill's lead sponsor, Representative Howard McFadden, received so many e-mails he withdrew his support for the bill and urged the Education Committee to kill it. In addition to the e-mails, more than a dozen people showed up at the Statehouse to oppose LD 1739, including Stephen Bowen, MHPC's director of the Center for Education Excellence. The Education Committee was overwhelmed by citizens ready to fight to preserve your right to a referendum vote.
Senator Carol Weston, ranking member of the Education Committee, was very impressed by the work MHPC and its members did to defeat this bill. Although we achieved a big victory yesterday with the immediate defeat of a bill to take away your voting rights, we cannot claim victory yet. The Education Committee Chairman, Senator Justin Alfond, alluded to a massive omnibus education bill to be drafted by the Committee itself. While he was reluctant to offer any details, his remarks made it clear that the Committee's omnibus bill-which will not get a public hearing of its own-might include a provision to eliminate your right to a referendum vote on your local school budget. Below is a complete list of Education Committee members and their contact information. Please contact them today and tell them to oppose ANY bill that takes away your right to vote.
Sen. Justin Alfond, Chair207-232-4187 justin@justinalfond.com
Rep. Patricia Sutherland, Chair(207) 764-1490 psutherland@sutherlandweston.com
Sen. Carol Weston(207) 589-4481 cweston@fairpoint.net
Sen. Elizabeth Schneider207-866-7359 http://www.mainesenate.org/schneider/email.htm (form mail)
Rep. Edward Finch(207) 249-7898 edfinch@roadrunner.com
Rep. Alan Casavant(207) 284-4690 acasavant@maine.rr.com
Rep. Richard Wagner(207) 784-0645 rwagner@bates.edu
Rep. Stephen Lovejoy(207) 773-5538 steve.lovejoy@myfairpoint.net
Rep. Mary Nelson(207) 781-3750 mpn3@maine.rr.com
Rep. Helen Rankin(207) 625-4620 rankin8076@roadrunner.com
Rep. David Richardson(207) 848-3040 richardsond@hermon.net
Rep. Howard McFadden(207) 726-4676 mcfaddenh@roadrunner.com
Rep. Peter Johnson (207) 695-2019 rumridge27@gmail.com
MHPC and its members are making an impact, fighting every step of the way to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed to us. Contact the Education Committee members today, and join us in our fight.
*****
When politicians try to undermine our liberties, The Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) and its members take action. Yesterday, (Monday the 25th) at a public hearing before the Legislature's Education Committee, we showed that we will fight for your rights, and that we won't back down. LD 1739: "An Act To Remove the Requirement That the Annual Budget of a Regional School Unit Must Be Approved at a Budget Validation Referendum," would have stripped away your right to a referendum vote on local school budgets-yet another ploy by politicians to silence the citizens and taxpayers of Maine.
MHPC learned about the public hearing for this bill last Friday, leaving only the weekend to make our voices heard. But that didn't stop us. We immediately issued a call to action encouraging Mainers to contact the bill's sponsors demanding they stop trying to take away your right to vote. It worked. Hundreds of e-mails were sent by Maine citizens across the state.
Over the weekend, the bill's lead sponsor, Representative Howard McFadden, received so many e-mails he withdrew his support for the bill and urged the Education Committee to kill it. In addition to the e-mails, more than a dozen people showed up at the Statehouse to oppose LD 1739, including Stephen Bowen, MHPC's director of the Center for Education Excellence. The Education Committee was overwhelmed by citizens ready to fight to preserve your right to a referendum vote.
Senator Carol Weston, ranking member of the Education Committee, was very impressed by the work MHPC and its members did to defeat this bill. Although we achieved a big victory yesterday with the immediate defeat of a bill to take away your voting rights, we cannot claim victory yet. The Education Committee Chairman, Senator Justin Alfond, alluded to a massive omnibus education bill to be drafted by the Committee itself. While he was reluctant to offer any details, his remarks made it clear that the Committee's omnibus bill-which will not get a public hearing of its own-might include a provision to eliminate your right to a referendum vote on your local school budget. Below is a complete list of Education Committee members and their contact information. Please contact them today and tell them to oppose ANY bill that takes away your right to vote.
Sen. Justin Alfond, Chair207-232-4187 justin@justinalfond.com
Rep. Patricia Sutherland, Chair(207) 764-1490 psutherland@sutherlandweston.com
Sen. Carol Weston(207) 589-4481 cweston@fairpoint.net
Sen. Elizabeth Schneider207-866-7359 http://www.mainesenate.org/schneider/email.htm (form mail)
Rep. Edward Finch(207) 249-7898 edfinch@roadrunner.com
Rep. Alan Casavant(207) 284-4690 acasavant@maine.rr.com
Rep. Richard Wagner(207) 784-0645 rwagner@bates.edu
Rep. Stephen Lovejoy(207) 773-5538 steve.lovejoy@myfairpoint.net
Rep. Mary Nelson(207) 781-3750 mpn3@maine.rr.com
Rep. Helen Rankin(207) 625-4620 rankin8076@roadrunner.com
Rep. David Richardson(207) 848-3040 richardsond@hermon.net
Rep. Howard McFadden(207) 726-4676 mcfaddenh@roadrunner.com
Rep. Peter Johnson (207) 695-2019 rumridge27@gmail.com
MHPC and its members are making an impact, fighting every step of the way to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed to us. Contact the Education Committee members today, and join us in our fight.
Monday, January 25, 2010
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING TONIGHT, THE 25TH
The SAD 63 School Board will be gathering for its monthly Do Nothing gathering tonight at the Eddington Elementary School - at 6:30pm. First thing on the agenda is to elect a new Chair (one would think the election of a new Vice Chair should have been considered when the agenda was being put together - just in case the current Vice Chair, Therese Anderson, was elected Chair, but maybe certain people on the Board didn't think that would happen). Do we smell another Holden "fix" in the works?
In looking at the proposed agenda, it is "interesting" to note that for another month there is absolutely nothing regarding the initiation of any Regional Planning Committee meeting for the RSU (or AOS). Seems I recall Ray Hart pointing out some months ago that the voters should be voting in February to approve a proposed RSU (developed by the multi-community RPCs) that is supposed to go into effect by July 1, 2010 (a little over five months from now).
At this point, with no RSU or AOS to vote on (because there have been no RPC meetings to work on such a product), the state, that is looking for every penny it can save, will be in a position to levy the $167,000 penalty on SAD 63 for failing to consolidate. Of course, that penalty will not be paid out of the pockets/checkbooks or savings of the eight school board members. It will be added to the $125,000 we taxpayers in Eddington, Clifton and Holden will see in our property tax bills (the latter being our portion of the recent settlement agreement with the former superintendent, Louise Regan). And that's just for starters.
By this coming November when the new Governor and Legislature takes their offices, the state of Maine's projected deficit will be $1,000,000 (one million dollars) - twice the amount the Legislature is wrestling with right now. That bombshell was delivered at the January luncheon of the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
Following tonight's Board meeting, the Board plans to conduct an Executive Session to discuss development of next year' budget, what they need to do regarding the initiation of a teachers' contract and a search for a short-term Interim Superintendent. (Seems Ray Hart didn't seem to think adding the issue of the current Business Manager's contract ALSO expiring June 30, 2010 merited inclusion to be discussed in the Executive Session. Not that the Acting Chair, Therese Anderson, or any other Board member notified the Board Secretary to include that item...)
With the State cutting back over $340,000-$355,000 from their share of this district's current (2009-2010) school budget, and even less to be expected from the State next year (not to mention deducting the $167,000) from whatever they "plan to allocate" (which is not the same as what they'll eventually deliver), any SAD 63 teachers' contract will be lucky to equal what the past one has been - salaries and benefits combined. But everyone can forget any increases. Which is why anyone who thinks there doesn't need to be the same facilitator sitting in on these negotiations has his head up a very dark place (or is bucking for a paid consultant position with the teachers' union). The facilitator who kept things realistic the last time saved this district a lot of money when the union representative came in with a List of Expectations that equaled what teachers in the Brewer school district received. It would be good to remember that the teachers in the Orrington school district, where property has a higher state valuation than any of the towns in SAD 63, receive lower compensation than the teachers in SAD 63.
As far any search for an Interim Superintendent is concerned, the first place to start would be a conversation with the Interim Superintendent currently serving the Otis school district.
And last but not least, since this Board should be talking about reducing school budget costs, let them start with some realities regarding the current Business Manager, Yvonne Mitchell, who is currently paid more than $70,000 a year.
There hasn't been a Financial Statement provided since September, and that includes the packets the members of the Board received in preparation for tonight's meeting. And yet, her supervisor, the Interim Superintendent, prepared and read aloud at a recent School Board meeting a Letter of Commendation lauding the Business Manager's performance including her preparation of monthly financial statements. (Guess he failed to remember the five months last year when she didn't produce any then, either.)
BTW - The Business Manager at UTC produces monthly financial reports that are in excess of 70 pages in length - every month. The UTC Business Manager is paid approximately one-half what Ms. Mitchell is paid. And the UTC Business Manager doesn't have a Part-Time assistant to help her, unlike Ms. Mitchell. Seems to this writer, we could save a lot of school budget money by hiring the UTC Business Manager effective July 1, 2010. We'd be getting a more productive employee and we could probably hire that individual for significantly less than what we're paying Ms. Mitchell.
In Summary - there is significant work to be done by the members of the SAD 63 board. One wonders when they plan to get started?
When talking this past week with parents of some students enrolled at the Eddington School, the parents were shocked to learn nothing has been done regarding the formation of an RSU. They were even more shocked to learn that Orrington and Dedham have officially filed Letters of Intent of consolidate without joining with SAD 63 or CSD 8. Perhaps the individual school newsletters should start communicating directly with the parents of the students in this district to let them know just how ineffective their elected school board is performing. This news is certainly more important that the latest cookie fundraiser.
In looking at the proposed agenda, it is "interesting" to note that for another month there is absolutely nothing regarding the initiation of any Regional Planning Committee meeting for the RSU (or AOS). Seems I recall Ray Hart pointing out some months ago that the voters should be voting in February to approve a proposed RSU (developed by the multi-community RPCs) that is supposed to go into effect by July 1, 2010 (a little over five months from now).
At this point, with no RSU or AOS to vote on (because there have been no RPC meetings to work on such a product), the state, that is looking for every penny it can save, will be in a position to levy the $167,000 penalty on SAD 63 for failing to consolidate. Of course, that penalty will not be paid out of the pockets/checkbooks or savings of the eight school board members. It will be added to the $125,000 we taxpayers in Eddington, Clifton and Holden will see in our property tax bills (the latter being our portion of the recent settlement agreement with the former superintendent, Louise Regan). And that's just for starters.
By this coming November when the new Governor and Legislature takes their offices, the state of Maine's projected deficit will be $1,000,000 (one million dollars) - twice the amount the Legislature is wrestling with right now. That bombshell was delivered at the January luncheon of the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
Following tonight's Board meeting, the Board plans to conduct an Executive Session to discuss development of next year' budget, what they need to do regarding the initiation of a teachers' contract and a search for a short-term Interim Superintendent. (Seems Ray Hart didn't seem to think adding the issue of the current Business Manager's contract ALSO expiring June 30, 2010 merited inclusion to be discussed in the Executive Session. Not that the Acting Chair, Therese Anderson, or any other Board member notified the Board Secretary to include that item...)
With the State cutting back over $340,000-$355,000 from their share of this district's current (2009-2010) school budget, and even less to be expected from the State next year (not to mention deducting the $167,000) from whatever they "plan to allocate" (which is not the same as what they'll eventually deliver), any SAD 63 teachers' contract will be lucky to equal what the past one has been - salaries and benefits combined. But everyone can forget any increases. Which is why anyone who thinks there doesn't need to be the same facilitator sitting in on these negotiations has his head up a very dark place (or is bucking for a paid consultant position with the teachers' union). The facilitator who kept things realistic the last time saved this district a lot of money when the union representative came in with a List of Expectations that equaled what teachers in the Brewer school district received. It would be good to remember that the teachers in the Orrington school district, where property has a higher state valuation than any of the towns in SAD 63, receive lower compensation than the teachers in SAD 63.
As far any search for an Interim Superintendent is concerned, the first place to start would be a conversation with the Interim Superintendent currently serving the Otis school district.
And last but not least, since this Board should be talking about reducing school budget costs, let them start with some realities regarding the current Business Manager, Yvonne Mitchell, who is currently paid more than $70,000 a year.
There hasn't been a Financial Statement provided since September, and that includes the packets the members of the Board received in preparation for tonight's meeting. And yet, her supervisor, the Interim Superintendent, prepared and read aloud at a recent School Board meeting a Letter of Commendation lauding the Business Manager's performance including her preparation of monthly financial statements. (Guess he failed to remember the five months last year when she didn't produce any then, either.)
BTW - The Business Manager at UTC produces monthly financial reports that are in excess of 70 pages in length - every month. The UTC Business Manager is paid approximately one-half what Ms. Mitchell is paid. And the UTC Business Manager doesn't have a Part-Time assistant to help her, unlike Ms. Mitchell. Seems to this writer, we could save a lot of school budget money by hiring the UTC Business Manager effective July 1, 2010. We'd be getting a more productive employee and we could probably hire that individual for significantly less than what we're paying Ms. Mitchell.
In Summary - there is significant work to be done by the members of the SAD 63 board. One wonders when they plan to get started?
When talking this past week with parents of some students enrolled at the Eddington School, the parents were shocked to learn nothing has been done regarding the formation of an RSU. They were even more shocked to learn that Orrington and Dedham have officially filed Letters of Intent of consolidate without joining with SAD 63 or CSD 8. Perhaps the individual school newsletters should start communicating directly with the parents of the students in this district to let them know just how ineffective their elected school board is performing. This news is certainly more important that the latest cookie fundraiser.
Monday, January 18, 2010
TOMORROW NIGHT - THE 19TH
I hope (1) there will be an Eddington Board of Selectmen's meeting, and (2) if so, there will be some people show up (besides the Selectmen, and the 5 or less mandatory people and this writer) so that there can be some expression of genuine NEED for the Selectmen to attend the School Board meeting a week from now (the 25th) at the Eddington School to apply some significant pressure for the School Board to take some action re: the activation of the necessary RPC or whatever is needed to address this situation.
This matter IS related to town selectmen business when the lack of action on the part of the School Board is going to generate increased taxes (via $167,000 penalty) to be added to local property taxes. As though the state government's failure to manage within its own budget doesn't cause a "trickle down" increase in local taxes, even though this Governor says he's not willing to entertain any increased tax bills to address the current state shortfall.
When neither State government officials nor local School Board representatives are willing to do the jobs they were elected to do, it is time for the local voices to rise up and be heard. Sitting at home and venting anger with loud voices once the tax bills have been received is too late and too little.
Voters and taxpayers NEED to be in attendance at their local selectmen meetings and at the School Board meeting. Getting this RSU/OAS matter is of even higher priority than teachers' or central office contracts since there won't be any money to pay any contracts if this School Board doesn't get off its duff and do the job it was elected to do in the first place.
This matter IS related to town selectmen business when the lack of action on the part of the School Board is going to generate increased taxes (via $167,000 penalty) to be added to local property taxes. As though the state government's failure to manage within its own budget doesn't cause a "trickle down" increase in local taxes, even though this Governor says he's not willing to entertain any increased tax bills to address the current state shortfall.
When neither State government officials nor local School Board representatives are willing to do the jobs they were elected to do, it is time for the local voices to rise up and be heard. Sitting at home and venting anger with loud voices once the tax bills have been received is too late and too little.
Voters and taxpayers NEED to be in attendance at their local selectmen meetings and at the School Board meeting. Getting this RSU/OAS matter is of even higher priority than teachers' or central office contracts since there won't be any money to pay any contracts if this School Board doesn't get off its duff and do the job it was elected to do in the first place.
Friday, January 15, 2010
NEXT WEEK'S "MANDATORY PUBLIC MEETINGS"
Next Tuesday, the 19th, at 6pm is the scheduled time and date for the Eddington Board of Selectmen to meet.
Next Wednesday, the 20th, at 6:30pm, at the Holbrook Middle School is the scheduled time and date for the SAD 63 Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) meeting. The BFC meeting will be on the second floor at the top of the stairs, turn left and through the library to the room on the left.
It's time for the citizens (parents of school children of all ages, voters and taxpayers - retired or working) to start requiring some action from the School Board re: what is going to be done, and when and with whom as far as working toward a RSU or an Organized Alternative System (which the legislation does allow).
According to information presented yesterday at the monthly meeting of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, by the time the next Governor and Legislature is elected in November this year, Maine will be facing a $1 Billion deficit (that's BILLION). So if any of us think last year was bad for state subsidies for public education - or if the projections for this year look even worse ---Wait 'til you get a look at what will be coming out of Augusta after November if the people of this state elect another Democrat for Governor or a put a majority of democrats in charge of the Legislature.
Did you know there are 22 social service programs this administration has set up - welfare programs funded by the taxes of those of us who are still working or still stay in this state year-round and pay state income taxes? ALSO - that sorry and sad parade of individuals who were hauled to Augusta this past week were all organized by the same political group who opposed Question #4 (the TABOR bill) to limit government spending this past November - and who outspent the pro-TABOR campaign 15:1. Now where do you suppose that money came from (on both occasions)? Know this - The "Maine Can Do Better" campaign is supported by those who support the No Limits to Welfare philosophy which is supported by the social service organizations who are the same organizations that wanted TABOR to fail. Them on the taxpayer dole don't want it to stop and why would they? It's their Free Ride.
How does this relate to the meetings in Eddington next week? Because our local property taxes are going to increase A LOT if we don't demand (and I do mean DEMAND) the SAD 63 school board call a meeting immediately of the RPC teams from the towns represented by SAD 63, CSD 8 and Otis. If another Letter of Intent needs to be sent to the Commissioner of Education, so be it. But there's less of a chance of a penalty being levied if we are at least working toward the establishment of SOMETHING than if we are doing NOTHING. For sure, the absence of action by any of these school boards is going to land in the property tax bills for all of the rest of us. And Augusta is looking for money wherever it can find it.
Next Wednesday, the 20th, at 6:30pm, at the Holbrook Middle School is the scheduled time and date for the SAD 63 Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) meeting. The BFC meeting will be on the second floor at the top of the stairs, turn left and through the library to the room on the left.
It's time for the citizens (parents of school children of all ages, voters and taxpayers - retired or working) to start requiring some action from the School Board re: what is going to be done, and when and with whom as far as working toward a RSU or an Organized Alternative System (which the legislation does allow).
According to information presented yesterday at the monthly meeting of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, by the time the next Governor and Legislature is elected in November this year, Maine will be facing a $1 Billion deficit (that's BILLION). So if any of us think last year was bad for state subsidies for public education - or if the projections for this year look even worse ---Wait 'til you get a look at what will be coming out of Augusta after November if the people of this state elect another Democrat for Governor or a put a majority of democrats in charge of the Legislature.
Did you know there are 22 social service programs this administration has set up - welfare programs funded by the taxes of those of us who are still working or still stay in this state year-round and pay state income taxes? ALSO - that sorry and sad parade of individuals who were hauled to Augusta this past week were all organized by the same political group who opposed Question #4 (the TABOR bill) to limit government spending this past November - and who outspent the pro-TABOR campaign 15:1. Now where do you suppose that money came from (on both occasions)? Know this - The "Maine Can Do Better" campaign is supported by those who support the No Limits to Welfare philosophy which is supported by the social service organizations who are the same organizations that wanted TABOR to fail. Them on the taxpayer dole don't want it to stop and why would they? It's their Free Ride.
How does this relate to the meetings in Eddington next week? Because our local property taxes are going to increase A LOT if we don't demand (and I do mean DEMAND) the SAD 63 school board call a meeting immediately of the RPC teams from the towns represented by SAD 63, CSD 8 and Otis. If another Letter of Intent needs to be sent to the Commissioner of Education, so be it. But there's less of a chance of a penalty being levied if we are at least working toward the establishment of SOMETHING than if we are doing NOTHING. For sure, the absence of action by any of these school boards is going to land in the property tax bills for all of the rest of us. And Augusta is looking for money wherever it can find it.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
LADYBUGS ON THE WINE BOTTLES
Ever since the beginning of the year I've been reorganizing, cleaning and all that stuff in my basement in the course of taking down the Christmas decorations and putting them away. Years ago I found these great organizing shelves at Home Depot (they have them on sale right now even which is why I've bought three more sets) to help me organize the too many years of collecting household and outdoors decorations for the different holidays. Do not think it's just Christmas - although there used to be 32 boxes for just that holiday alone. No kidding. I'm much better now - down to about 8 or so (large clear plastic containers with red or green tops plus the big red bag in which the artificial six-foot tree is stored - and then there are the tops of two entire 18" deep by 24" wide shelves that have "things" standing up like solders and the one tall container - oh, yes - and three more long, flat ones for wrapping papers and gift bags).
There are two clear plastic boxes with Halloween and Thanksgiving decorations and one clear box for just Easter. Well, you get the picture. BUT, I am organized and it is very easy to find which things I need...in that section
So, in the process of moving a larger shelving unit (taller and 24" deep) to a better location - this unit is strictly for sewing projects and is organized the same way with the clear plastic bins (great ones on sale at Home Depot for $4.98 with closing tops that are hinged on the side of the box so they don't get misplaced from the box), I needed to move the rather small wine rack. The wine rack got moved to the basement after my son's visit last summer. He said the basement was a perfect spot because of the constantly cool temp. (It's "cooler" in the winter, I've noticed). Well, as I was moving the bottles, I found a lovely red ladybug. They were all over the house late this last Fall when the leaves came down. And I'd take them out and put them on a plant. I don't know what I thought happened to them normally in the winter - catch a ride south on a bird's wing like hummingbirds, perhaps. Now, I don't think so. Because I've found several dead ones in the house. But this one - the one on the wine bottle - for some reason I picked up and blew on it gently. Just warm breaths, you know.
Well, lo and behold, the thing started to move its legs and walk up my finger. Maybe ladybugs hibernate if they're not killed outright by being buried under some snow drift. Knowing it was not the right time to be flying around the house, I took the ladybug to the back of my (yes - organized) basement where I have more of those shelving units. These are for the gardening supplies and pots. There I placed her to rest for a few more months. When it's time to take out the garden gloves, she'll be right there on the finger - hopefully. Lord knows where she'll be if she takes a fancy to stroll around that part of the basement. I still have some organizing to do back there.
There are two clear plastic boxes with Halloween and Thanksgiving decorations and one clear box for just Easter. Well, you get the picture. BUT, I am organized and it is very easy to find which things I need...in that section
So, in the process of moving a larger shelving unit (taller and 24" deep) to a better location - this unit is strictly for sewing projects and is organized the same way with the clear plastic bins (great ones on sale at Home Depot for $4.98 with closing tops that are hinged on the side of the box so they don't get misplaced from the box), I needed to move the rather small wine rack. The wine rack got moved to the basement after my son's visit last summer. He said the basement was a perfect spot because of the constantly cool temp. (It's "cooler" in the winter, I've noticed). Well, as I was moving the bottles, I found a lovely red ladybug. They were all over the house late this last Fall when the leaves came down. And I'd take them out and put them on a plant. I don't know what I thought happened to them normally in the winter - catch a ride south on a bird's wing like hummingbirds, perhaps. Now, I don't think so. Because I've found several dead ones in the house. But this one - the one on the wine bottle - for some reason I picked up and blew on it gently. Just warm breaths, you know.
Well, lo and behold, the thing started to move its legs and walk up my finger. Maybe ladybugs hibernate if they're not killed outright by being buried under some snow drift. Knowing it was not the right time to be flying around the house, I took the ladybug to the back of my (yes - organized) basement where I have more of those shelving units. These are for the gardening supplies and pots. There I placed her to rest for a few more months. When it's time to take out the garden gloves, she'll be right there on the finger - hopefully. Lord knows where she'll be if she takes a fancy to stroll around that part of the basement. I still have some organizing to do back there.
Monday, January 11, 2010
RE: THE LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT - COMMUNICATIONS OF NOTE
The following emails were exchanged betweed this writer and the legal representative for the SAD 63 School Board, Bryon Dench, following word of the settlement that was reached, and agreed upon, between the Board and former (terminated) School Superintendent Louise Regan.
I did request and receive written authorization from Mr. Dench to print this information on this blog.
" To: Dench, Bryan M.
Subject: A Note of Appreciation
Dear Bryon,
This is just to let you and your staff know how much I as a citizen and taxpayer appreciate the work you and your staff did in defending the SAD 63 School Board and certain individual members. While I and many of my neighbors and townspeople were not pleased the Board decided to settle with Ms. Regan and her legal counsel, instead of at least going through the hearing process with the Commissioner of Education where we sincerely believe you would have prevailed, we believe you did everything and more we could have asked or hoped for.
Thank you again. It was a pleasure to watch you work.
Sincerely,
Ms. Rusty Gagnon, M.A.
Eddington, Maine"
"Thank you kindly, Rusty. I appreciate your gracious sentiment. You and your fellow citizens should know the board acted wisely and settled on my advice. Although I too am confident the board did nothing unjustified, and that had the Commissioner reviewed the merits of our appeal she would have agreed the board had cause to take the actions it did, there were enormous costs involved in continuing, both financial and human costs. It was my recommendation to settle the case. It is my belief the board acted prudently in so doing.
I hope that you enjoyed Christmas and please accept my best wishes for the New Year.
Kindest regards,
Bryan"
I did request and receive written authorization from Mr. Dench to print this information on this blog.
" To: Dench, Bryan M.
Subject: A Note of Appreciation
Dear Bryon,
This is just to let you and your staff know how much I as a citizen and taxpayer appreciate the work you and your staff did in defending the SAD 63 School Board and certain individual members. While I and many of my neighbors and townspeople were not pleased the Board decided to settle with Ms. Regan and her legal counsel, instead of at least going through the hearing process with the Commissioner of Education where we sincerely believe you would have prevailed, we believe you did everything and more we could have asked or hoped for.
Thank you again. It was a pleasure to watch you work.
Sincerely,
Ms. Rusty Gagnon, M.A.
Eddington, Maine"
"Thank you kindly, Rusty. I appreciate your gracious sentiment. You and your fellow citizens should know the board acted wisely and settled on my advice. Although I too am confident the board did nothing unjustified, and that had the Commissioner reviewed the merits of our appeal she would have agreed the board had cause to take the actions it did, there were enormous costs involved in continuing, both financial and human costs. It was my recommendation to settle the case. It is my belief the board acted prudently in so doing.
I hope that you enjoyed Christmas and please accept my best wishes for the New Year.
Kindest regards,
Bryan"
EDDINGTON ELECTIONS
Rumor has it that Brian Glass will NOT be seeking re-election to the Board of Selectmen this year. Haven't heard anything as to anyone who may be running for the position but it would be nice to think there might be someone interested in generating better public relations between town residents and the Board and more local business development. Of course that might require more than one Board position being changed.
I think the one school board position from Eddington that will be up for election will be the one currently held by Karen Clark - the only member of the board who believes the board should be responsible to the community and taxpayers as well as the management of the school district. Karen is currently enrolled in a college program to be a paralegal and has made the Chancellor's List two semesters in a row. FYI: The Chancellor's list is higher than the Dean's List. It is my belief that Karen plans to run for re-election. If she does, the residents of Eddington, as well as the parents of any students, and any teachers, etc. who are voters in Eddington would benefit by voting to keep Karen on the Board no matter what direction SAD 63 takes - assuming there is a direction... After all, it takes more than ONE oar to turn a ship that is dead in the water.
I think the one school board position from Eddington that will be up for election will be the one currently held by Karen Clark - the only member of the board who believes the board should be responsible to the community and taxpayers as well as the management of the school district. Karen is currently enrolled in a college program to be a paralegal and has made the Chancellor's List two semesters in a row. FYI: The Chancellor's list is higher than the Dean's List. It is my belief that Karen plans to run for re-election. If she does, the residents of Eddington, as well as the parents of any students, and any teachers, etc. who are voters in Eddington would benefit by voting to keep Karen on the Board no matter what direction SAD 63 takes - assuming there is a direction... After all, it takes more than ONE oar to turn a ship that is dead in the water.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
BITS 'N PIECES - ELECTIONS - AND SILVER MORNINGS
Looking out my kitchen window yesterday morning, I knew Jack Frost must have been busy. In the hazy sunlight, the skeletal young trees that mark the boundary between my lot and the one next door glittered as though Jack had brushed each branch with silver paint and then dusted it with diamond dust. Two lots away big white puffs of smoke billowed from the chimney in the cold air. Behind my house the dark trunks of the trees in my woods stood out against the mounds of snow from last week-ends storm.
By 7:30am the work crew was hard at it on the year-round house being built next door. It sure is going up fast. Foundation's in, walls and the roof is up. The back half of the roof is already shingled. The double-storied deck is framed along with the peaked roof for the second story. Windows are in - which has got to make the crew happy. Watching them shovel out that snow this past Monday - straight out the front, through the window frames there was no problem knowing there'd been a goodly amount that had made it through the various opening. Kudos are due all the same to the men working on that house. Through all this cold, even huddled around the small fire at the back during breaks, they work hard and diligently right up to dark. "Spect the new family will be on on schedule by late March-early April. Just hope the weather holds.
*****
Sign in front of the Clifton Town Office says Nomination Papers need to be obtained - 1 Selectman position AND 1 School Board position. As I recall, Chris Fickett, the current school board rep from Clifton, was appointed last year by the Clifton Board of Selectmen. The appointment was for one year. Considering the current situation of a "do-nothing" SAD 63 school board, it would be a good idea for any candidate running for the school board to really know the duties and responsibilities of the position. Especially anyone running this year.
The situation since the last posting has become even more tenuous - not just regarding the overall RSU questions but WHY the SAD 63 school board members (and former board chairman, Don Varnum) have ever had the mindset SAD 63 had to wait on Orrington and Dedham before taking any action to get an RPC started. None of the people of Dedham or Orrington elected the members of the SAD 63 school board. None of the people of Dedham or Orrington will be paying the penalty assessed to the towns of Eddington, Clifton or Holden.
Considering the amount of work needed to be done before the voters can even decide on any RSU issue, the individual and collective members of the SAD 63 board have totally failed the very people to whom they have direct responsibility - the people of Eddington, Clifton and Holden - the people who elected those members of the SAD 63 school board. How hard is that for the eight people on that school board to comprehend? Extremely hard it would appear.
THE FACTS:
There is absolutely no reason why any member of the SAD 63 school board could not take the reins and call for a meeting of all towns from all five (5) school boards [SAD 63, CSD 8, Otis, Dedham and Orrington] at a place and time and date to be determined by the SAD 63 board. Additionally, the SAD 63 board could declare that all boards should notify all RPCs from their jurisdictions should send three-member teams and that such teams should be comprised of 1 school board member, 1 municipality/selectman, and 1 community representative. The notification should stipulate that any school board, or jurisdiction within any given school board, that does not attend the initial meeting may be allowed to attend subsequent meetings; however, the decisions that will have been made up to that point shall be the governing rules which the late-comers shall have to accept or be excluded from the group. There is simply no more time for prima donnas.
IF a quorum of the SAD 63 school board is not prepared and willing to take this action at it January 25th meeting at the Eddington Elementary School, they should all resign.
The initial RPC meeting should take place no later than Monday, February 15, Presidents' Day, since it is a holiday and more people should be able to attend.
All people should be provided a copy of the "OLD" RSU document.
Kevin Mills has tried to raise the idea of looking at the option of an OAS. Otis wants an OAS and can probably provide some good and valid information for such a plan. Generally speaking, this writer's understanding is that an OAS allows the existing systems to continue with one change - consolidation of Central Services, which was the State's original intent for consolidation in the first place.
The letter the Superintendent from Orrington generated from Commissioner Gendron (refer to the previous positing) is not what Must be - in fact Mr. Higgins at the November 17th meeting was in support of a community representative on the RPC teams. It is highly unlikely any RSU vote will be supported by any community without community representation on the RPC. At this point in time, there is little respect or confidence in Eddington, Clifton or Holden in their school board representatives - the very people the townspeople elected to be responsible for taking care of business and who have failed to do just that. Over recent months the Selectmen have been made aware of the failing of the school board representatives. It IS time for the towns and citizens and school families to let their positions be known.
There will be a SAD 63 Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) meeting January 20 at 6pm at the Holbrook Middle School.
Perhaps this will be an opportunity to obtain some of the answers to the questions that were submitted the first part of October re: the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit.
Perhaps the members of the BFC will be prepared to discuss to Maine School Management Association Bulletin dated January 4, 2010 titled "$73 million in proposed GPA cut shifts burden to locals" (Locals means us - the town taxpayers)
Gov. John Baldacci's proposed biennial budget, which cuts $73 million out of General Purpose Aid to schools, also calls for other changes, including reductions in the tuition private schools can charge public districts this year and the amount of aid going to communities whose high property values make them minimum receivers.
While the Dept. of Education says the reductions in aid to minimum receivers and the tuition proposals are designed to spread the pain of the GPA cuts, other provisions would allow closer monitoring of how the districts spend the money they get.
There is a proposal, for example, to make annual school district audits more stringent regarding cost-center transfers and another to require that minor capital projects be included in the regular school budget.
Cost shift to locals:
Above all, the proposed state budget language makes it clear just how much of the burden of paying for K-12 education is going to shift onto local property taxpayers as state GPA declines. Under state law, each community must cover its local share of the cost of education, as defined by the Essential Programs and Service funding formula, and raise up to the required equalized local mill rate to cover those costs. With the proposed cuts in GPA, that required local mill rate for education is going from 6.37 to 6.69 in this fiscal year and up to an estimated 7.14 next year.
Put another way, the local share for K-12 education this year will be $918 million versus a state share of $921 million, plus $43 million in stimulus money.
Next year, the local share will be $997 versus a state share of $852, plus $59 million in federal money. That means the state share of education will drop to 44 percent in school year 2010-2011, with locals picking up 52 percent and federal stimulus money covering the rest-federal money that runs out on June 30, 2011. The required local-share numbers don't include what districts spend for programs not covered by the EPS formula.
The sticker shock on the required local share will be made worse in those communities where property valuations have increased more than the state average, since the state gives less to those with higher values.
Budget details:
A public hearing on the education-related sections of the proposed supplements is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 14, starting at 1 p.m., before the Appropriations and Education Committees. That hearing can be heard by clicking on the following link:
http://www.maine.gov/legis/ofpr/appropriations_committee/audio/
Ultimately, the budget will have to be approved by the full Legislature.
The budget as proposed would:
By 7:30am the work crew was hard at it on the year-round house being built next door. It sure is going up fast. Foundation's in, walls and the roof is up. The back half of the roof is already shingled. The double-storied deck is framed along with the peaked roof for the second story. Windows are in - which has got to make the crew happy. Watching them shovel out that snow this past Monday - straight out the front, through the window frames there was no problem knowing there'd been a goodly amount that had made it through the various opening. Kudos are due all the same to the men working on that house. Through all this cold, even huddled around the small fire at the back during breaks, they work hard and diligently right up to dark. "Spect the new family will be on on schedule by late March-early April. Just hope the weather holds.
*****
Sign in front of the Clifton Town Office says Nomination Papers need to be obtained - 1 Selectman position AND 1 School Board position. As I recall, Chris Fickett, the current school board rep from Clifton, was appointed last year by the Clifton Board of Selectmen. The appointment was for one year. Considering the current situation of a "do-nothing" SAD 63 school board, it would be a good idea for any candidate running for the school board to really know the duties and responsibilities of the position. Especially anyone running this year.
The situation since the last posting has become even more tenuous - not just regarding the overall RSU questions but WHY the SAD 63 school board members (and former board chairman, Don Varnum) have ever had the mindset SAD 63 had to wait on Orrington and Dedham before taking any action to get an RPC started. None of the people of Dedham or Orrington elected the members of the SAD 63 school board. None of the people of Dedham or Orrington will be paying the penalty assessed to the towns of Eddington, Clifton or Holden.
Considering the amount of work needed to be done before the voters can even decide on any RSU issue, the individual and collective members of the SAD 63 board have totally failed the very people to whom they have direct responsibility - the people of Eddington, Clifton and Holden - the people who elected those members of the SAD 63 school board. How hard is that for the eight people on that school board to comprehend? Extremely hard it would appear.
THE FACTS:
- SAD 63, CSD 8, and Otis have all filed Letters of Intent with the State Commissioner of Education indicating their intent and interest of forming a "partnership" RSU.
- Following the November 17, 2009 meeting at the Holbrook Middle School, the Orrington and Dedham school boards and superintendents indicated their intentions to file Letters of Intent to join SAD 63, CSD 8 (but not Otis) in the same "partnership" RSU.
- According to credible rumors and sources in both this area and from the Orrington area, Orrington and Dedham have not filed Letters of Intent and do not intend to do so.
There is absolutely no reason why any member of the SAD 63 school board could not take the reins and call for a meeting of all towns from all five (5) school boards [SAD 63, CSD 8, Otis, Dedham and Orrington] at a place and time and date to be determined by the SAD 63 board. Additionally, the SAD 63 board could declare that all boards should notify all RPCs from their jurisdictions should send three-member teams and that such teams should be comprised of 1 school board member, 1 municipality/selectman, and 1 community representative. The notification should stipulate that any school board, or jurisdiction within any given school board, that does not attend the initial meeting may be allowed to attend subsequent meetings; however, the decisions that will have been made up to that point shall be the governing rules which the late-comers shall have to accept or be excluded from the group. There is simply no more time for prima donnas.
IF a quorum of the SAD 63 school board is not prepared and willing to take this action at it January 25th meeting at the Eddington Elementary School, they should all resign.
The initial RPC meeting should take place no later than Monday, February 15, Presidents' Day, since it is a holiday and more people should be able to attend.
All people should be provided a copy of the "OLD" RSU document.
Kevin Mills has tried to raise the idea of looking at the option of an OAS. Otis wants an OAS and can probably provide some good and valid information for such a plan. Generally speaking, this writer's understanding is that an OAS allows the existing systems to continue with one change - consolidation of Central Services, which was the State's original intent for consolidation in the first place.
The letter the Superintendent from Orrington generated from Commissioner Gendron (refer to the previous positing) is not what Must be - in fact Mr. Higgins at the November 17th meeting was in support of a community representative on the RPC teams. It is highly unlikely any RSU vote will be supported by any community without community representation on the RPC. At this point in time, there is little respect or confidence in Eddington, Clifton or Holden in their school board representatives - the very people the townspeople elected to be responsible for taking care of business and who have failed to do just that. Over recent months the Selectmen have been made aware of the failing of the school board representatives. It IS time for the towns and citizens and school families to let their positions be known.
There will be a SAD 63 Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) meeting January 20 at 6pm at the Holbrook Middle School.
Perhaps this will be an opportunity to obtain some of the answers to the questions that were submitted the first part of October re: the 2007-2008 SAD 63 Audit.
Perhaps the members of the BFC will be prepared to discuss to Maine School Management Association Bulletin dated January 4, 2010 titled "$73 million in proposed GPA cut shifts burden to locals" (Locals means us - the town taxpayers)
Gov. John Baldacci's proposed biennial budget, which cuts $73 million out of General Purpose Aid to schools, also calls for other changes, including reductions in the tuition private schools can charge public districts this year and the amount of aid going to communities whose high property values make them minimum receivers.
While the Dept. of Education says the reductions in aid to minimum receivers and the tuition proposals are designed to spread the pain of the GPA cuts, other provisions would allow closer monitoring of how the districts spend the money they get.
There is a proposal, for example, to make annual school district audits more stringent regarding cost-center transfers and another to require that minor capital projects be included in the regular school budget.
Cost shift to locals:
Above all, the proposed state budget language makes it clear just how much of the burden of paying for K-12 education is going to shift onto local property taxpayers as state GPA declines. Under state law, each community must cover its local share of the cost of education, as defined by the Essential Programs and Service funding formula, and raise up to the required equalized local mill rate to cover those costs. With the proposed cuts in GPA, that required local mill rate for education is going from 6.37 to 6.69 in this fiscal year and up to an estimated 7.14 next year.
Put another way, the local share for K-12 education this year will be $918 million versus a state share of $921 million, plus $43 million in stimulus money.
Next year, the local share will be $997 versus a state share of $852, plus $59 million in federal money. That means the state share of education will drop to 44 percent in school year 2010-2011, with locals picking up 52 percent and federal stimulus money covering the rest-federal money that runs out on June 30, 2011. The required local-share numbers don't include what districts spend for programs not covered by the EPS formula.
The sticker shock on the required local share will be made worse in those communities where property valuations have increased more than the state average, since the state gives less to those with higher values.
Budget details:
A public hearing on the education-related sections of the proposed supplements is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 14, starting at 1 p.m., before the Appropriations and Education Committees. That hearing can be heard by clicking on the following link:
http://www.maine.gov/legis/ofpr/appropriations_committee/audio/
Ultimately, the budget will have to be approved by the full Legislature.
The budget as proposed would:
- Cut GPA for the current school year by $38 million and next year by $35 million on top of substantial reductions in GPA for 2010-2011 already included in the regular biennial budget. That means total state aid and federal stimulus money going to schools this year would be $964 million and $911 million in 2010-2011.
- Waive, for this school year only, the requirement that locals make up for what the state is cutting in terms of required spending under EPS. That means communities won't have to raise their mill rates, but districts will have to make difficult cuts in the middle of the school year to keep their budgets balanced.
- Reduce state aid to the more than 80 minimum receivers who receive a portion of their special education expenditures in lieu of a percentage of their overall EPS allocation. They will go to 40 percent of the unit's special education costs in the current school year and to 30 percent in 2010-2011 and succeeding years (emphasis added by this writer).
- For those few minimum receivers who currently get 5 percent of their EPS allocation, versus special education reimbursement, that will be reduced to 4 percent in the current year and 3 percent in 2010-2011 and succeeding years.
- Cut private school tuition rates for the current year by 2 percent to give a break to those districts that tuition out their high school students and therefore have to absorb this year's budget cuts in their K-8 system.
- Cap future tuition rate hikes for both public and private schools at the rate of inflation versus the previous limit of up to 6 percent increase.
- Require the annual school district audit to look at whether districts transferred more than 5 percent among cost centers - 5 percent being the limit in statute. If districts have exceeded the 5 percent limit, they have to file a corrective action plan with the commissioner of education.
- Change statute to say school administrative units can no longer include minor capital projects on the warrant along with non-state-funded major capital school construction projects. They instead will be included as part of the general school budget.
- Repeal sections of the law dealing with budget articles and require SADs and CSDs to have the same cost centers as RSUs.
SO - this is the latest we will ALL have to deal with - as in increased taxes.
Add to this there is a need for at least a 1 year Teachers Contract (because Varnum wanted to wait for the RPC/RSU and of course he never called for any RPC meetings....) and some kind of a 1 year (or something) for the Interim Superintendent because Ray Hart's contract expires 6/30/10 (thank goodness! He, too, has been part of the "do nothing Varnum administration") AND - less we PLEASE do not forget - the Business Manager's contract ALSO expires 6/30/10 - with its $5,000.00 bonus and our annual inflated local taxes paid to cover for the annual state failure to pay its bill.
Seems a great time to begin consolidating SAD 63's central office services. The Otis School Board recently hired an Interim Superintendent. Maybe SAD 63 should think about talking to that gentleman and see if he could also take on SAD 63 and CSD 8. Maybe we could find a Business Manager who could provide those services for all three school districts.
AND - if the commissioner will not accept the honest efforts of our three school districts (without Dedham and Orrington) maybe our Plan "B" (there should always be a Plan "B") should be to talk to the Old Town School District/RSU.
BTW- Whatever communications and documents go forth from SAD 63 SHOULD NOT be signed by Don Varnum. Seems the man can't remember the date upon which he was no longer the SAD 63 Chairman. If a person signs "after the fact" with a title he has already surrendered, is such a document legal? Especially when the Vice Chairman is the legally "Acting Chair" until a new Chair is elected (which should take place at the January 25th meeting).
Saturday, January 2, 2010
"STUFF" IS FALLING - AND IT'S NOT ALL CLEAN
It seems there has been skulduggery afoot since November 17 and, as usual, Don Varnum from the SAD 63 School Board has been right in the middle of it.
As noted in previous postings, the School Board Chairs from MSAD 63, Orrington, Dedham and Airline/CSD 8, along with Allen Snell, Superintendent from the Orrington School Department; Dan Lee, Superintendent from the Dedham School Department(and Brewer School District); and Ray Hart, Interim Superintendent from MSAD 63/Airline CSD 8 all met at the Holbrook Middle School on that date. Others in attendance were the Business Managers for SAD 63, Yvonne Mitchell, and Orrington, Lester Young. This meeting was reported in Don Varnum's Chairman's Report to the Board at the November School meeting on November 30th. The following is an except from Varnum's report dated 11/20/09 as it relates to the November 17th meeting.
Varnum stated "the purpose of the meeting was to find out who wished to join the RSU discussions/planning and to lay on the table any reservations that there might be regarding the formation of an RSU. As a result of this round table discussion, we felt that there were several questions that needed to be answered by Norman Higgins, a representative from the Department of Education who handles consolidation issues.
Superintendent Snell agreed to ask these questions:
1. May the makeup of the new RPC be different than the original law? I.E. Based on population and evaluation. Yes! Other RPC's have been granted permission to do differently. Mr. Higgins suggests including representation as stated in the law (i.e., municipal, school committee, community) but we can compose the RPC as we desire as long as it is reasonable. (Writer's note: It appears that Mr. Higgins, the Commissioner's rep suggested including cummunity representation BUT those at the meeting - school board chairs and superintendents preferred to eliminate them.)
2. May school committee chairs appoint representatives for RPC? As long as municipal input is considered.
3. Do we need to have a facilitator? No! (Writer's note: A facilitator is usually beneficial to insure that everyone gets to be heard and that no one "voice or opinion" gets to dominate.)
4. May we state in the plan that a specific school will not close? Yes, as long as everyone agrees.
5. Will the commissioner pay for the second vote? Fund(sic) are gone. (Writer's note: that means us taxpayers get to pay for everything associated with this go-round...the printing and mailings to announce...the locations and Public Hearings to explain what is in the "Plan" as well as how much it is going to cost as well as the political structure - aka where the power will be to control the school union. AND THEN the cost of setting up the voting and counting the votes.)
6. Otis-What is the status? There was a frank discussion about their situation. There were several concerns that gave each of us the feeling that they would be a better fit with RSU-24. (Ellsworth area.) Given the short time frame to get all the tasks completed and plan approved for our RSU, we felt it is best if they pursued that avenue again. (Writer's note: This means without Otis it will be easier to just "cut and paste" from the old RSU - the one where we were going to consolidate with Brewer - and call that the "New RSU". With Otis we would really have to plan how we would add those student is - or send students to that school, which the Town of Otis owns (!!!) and add in that additional revenue - and calculate that additional tax base - and share the power on the RSU Board with Otis. Oh Darn. And BTW - they just hired a new Interim Superintendent. He's good, I hear. Maybe that's why Orrington isn't too happy.)
The discussion continued about choosing partners and the consensus among the board chairs is that Orrington, Dedham, CSD-8 and SAD-63 should be partners. THe next step is to have the "letters of intent" approved by each School Committee/Board of Directors. To that end, Orrington is trying to schedule a meeting November 30th, CSD-8 approved their letter on the 18th (of November), Dedham is trying to schedule a meeting on December 1at and it is on the agenda for our (SAD 63) meeting on the 30th.
Further discussion centered on those chosen for the RPC should be those who are ready to devote sufficient time and energy, with a co-operative attitude and prior experience toward constructing a workable plan." (Writer's note: see #6 about re: "cut and paste".)
So let's look at what has happen since:
1. At the SAD 63 November 30th meeting, the School Board approved sending TWO "letters of intent" to the Commissioner - one with and one without the Town of Otis as a potential partner in the RSU. (This was the Board's intent - even if it wasn't Mr. Varnum's or those at the November 17'th meeting.)
2. Varnum did NOT inform the School Board - or the members of the Boards of Selectmen from Clifton or Eddington who were in attendance that Superintendent Allen Snell from the Orrington School Department had also been authorized at the November 17th meeting to write a letter to Commissioner Gendron requesting permission to eliminate the Citizen/community representative on the RPC teams from the potential partners of the RSU. Such a letter was received by the Commissioner's office on December 15, 2009. Mr. Snell sent copies of his letter to both Dan Lee and Ray Hart. The following is the body of the response from the Commissioner:
"Dear Superintendent Snell:
This letter is in response to the "Membership for RPC" template received by my office on December 15,2009 for representation on the reorganization committee for Orrington, Dedham, MSAD 63 and the Airline CSD. The representation appears to be equitable, based on resident population and state valuation, and therefore, I approve its use.
If my office can be of further assistance as you proceed with your planning, please contact Norm Higgins or Ray Poulin of the Reorganization Team. They can be reached by phone at 624-6802."
Signed Susan A. Gendron, Commissioner of Education
Attached was a chart which was obviously prepared by and faxed from the office of the Orrington Superintendent. It is Titled:
"MEMBERSHIP for RPC
DEVELOPED and AGREED TO: FEBRUARY 6, 2009
and on NOVEMBER 17, 2009
(note these dates because the February 6, 2009 date is the same date shown on a letter prepared by Dan Lee nearly one year ago when he an RSU Board for Orrington, Dedham, SAD 63, Airline RSU Board [Ottis was not included then, either]. ALSO NOTE - this data was reportedly agreed on November 17, 2009 - the meeting at Holbrook School - data which was NOT reported in Varnum's November report to the SAD 63 Board report. This proposal was not referenced in any way in Varnum's November report to the Board.
This chart sets out how many RPC votes will be allocated per town (of the potential partners) NOTE: Otis is NOT represented on this chart. The allocated is based on population (as shown) and state property valuation - with a total RPC (and probable RSU Board) of 14-15 depending on whether Airline is allocated 1 or 2 votes.
Municipality Resident Pop. State Valuation RPC Votes
Clifton .................743........... 72,200,000........... 2 or 1
Eddington ........2052......... 157,250,000........... 2 or 2
Holden .............2827.......... 268,100,000........... 2 or 3
Orrington ........3526......... 332,150,000........... 4 or 4
Dedham ...........1460......... 261,350,000........... 3 or 3
Amherst ............230............. 4,300,000 )
Auroa ................121............. 17,600,000 )
Great Pond ........47 ............. 18,150,000 )........ 1 or 2
Osborn ...............69 ............ 13,000,000 )
Total: ......11,075 ....1,164,100,000...... 14 or 15
The problem(s) with this calculation are many.
1. This chart was based on the 2007 census. The population of these municipalities need to be updated and verified according to current data.
2. RPC "votes" are not even based on students who will be (are currently enrolled in K-8) classes. Note: Students enrolled in high schools are reportedly under the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the high schools where the students attend and therefore should not be included in the student poopulation of the RSU being discussed here. The RPC VOTES on this chart are being determined by "state valuation" meaning property values. Therefore, according to this chart, even though Dedham has only a popoulation of 1460 (and Holden has twice that poulation), Dedham would get 3 RPC votes and Holden would get only 2 RPC votes. Question: With the business and population growth Holden has been experiencing, does Holden believe its representation on the RPC (and probably the RSU Board) should be only two-thirds that of Dedham? What is/will be the student population ratio between Holden and Dedham in the new RSU? Two Holden students to three Dedham students?
Let's look at the proposed representation of Orrington on the RPC/RSU Board? Holden has a population of 2827 compared to Orrington's 3526. Should Orrington have twice as many votes when it only has 700 more in popoulation? Airline/CSD has a total population of 467. Clifton has nearly double that. Should their votes be equal? Does any of this sound right or equitable? This will ultimately come down to taxation, remember because the job of the school board is the MANAGE the district/union. This is business, after all. Sure Orrington want the biggest piece of the pie but is it right/equitable? This writer doesn't think so unless they have the largest number of students in the schools and are paying a proportionate amount of the taxes.
Some people on the SAD 63 Board started thinking that all three towns in SAD 63 should be thought of as one single entity - like Orrington is one single entity. Wrong. Eddington is separate from Clifton which is separate from Holden. Otherwise Holden would not have wanted that land so badly now would it? What if Eddington and/or Clifton just decided they were so fed up with Don Varnum they were going to up and leave SAD 63 and Holden - forget partnering with Orrington and Dedham (neither of whom have filed their letters of intent, BTW) - and decided to start talking with Old Town and Otis. Those people on the SAD 63 School Board who think all three towns in SAD 63 are one entity would start to see we are three INDEPENDENT towns with three independent tax bases. And frankly, I think it's time for some independence. Of course, it's also time for some backbone and accountability from members of the Board.
There are members on the Board who need to resign for health reasons. And I'm not just referring to Varnum because of his reportedly recent heart attack. Some members simply cannot do -or do not want to do - the business of the Board. The majority of the Board members appear to be more interested in being finished with their Board positions than fulfilling them. Other than Karen Clark, no one seems to be willing to speak in opposition to the totalitarian form of government Varnum has exhibited for the past year(s). The fact that he waited until the end of the December meeting to announce his resignation as Chair (but retained his position on the Board) shows he still intends to control and not from afar. He even refused the Public Access at the beginning of the meeting when he knew there would be voiced opposition by members of the public in attendance to some of his recent actions.
Jackie Smallwood from Holden had accepted the position of community representative on the RPC; however, at the December School Board meeting she submitted a two-page letter of resignation which is alleged to have stated she would not rubber-stamp what the School Board chairs go off and do on their own and then come back and expect the RPC's to just accept. Good for you, Jackie. Now we just need to let the community voters know they should do the same!
As for the town of Orrington: They don't want the town of Otis to be part of the RSU. They have been blatant in stating the fact. People in Eddington, Clifton and Holden need to remember two things:
1. Reps from Otis, including their Interim Superintendent came to SAD 63 School Board meetings and asked to join us - to be one of our partners in this new RSU. Orrington has never shown up for anything!
2. Orrington stated at the November 17th meeting they would decide on November 30th as to whether they wanted to join us. As of January 1 there is no information Orrington has even sent their letter of intent to the Commission that they want to be a partner with SAD 63...seems they're pi**ed that SAD 63 sent a letter of intent that did include Otis. Tough Snow! Dedham hasn't been able to make up their mind either, it seems.
3. Seems as I recall the mess with the RSU a year ago - no one like the idea of consolidating with Brewer OR with Orrington. As I recall there were BIG issues regarding Trust. Some how I think those same issues should still be on the table. Seems to me, what with what's been going on of late, Orrington has the idea they get to run the show (along with Varnum) and we've had all of that we can financially afford. More than we can afford, frankly!
3. SOOoo, why can't SAD 63 get off the dime? Isn't there a single leader among them? Do they have to wait for Varnum now that he's (A) refused to do anything since last June, (B) whinned that he's been trying since last July to get something started (BS), and (C) screwed us all with that November 17th "agreement." There is NOTHING in Gendron's letter that commits any one of the towns to that RPC formula. If the towns (are you listening Selectmen?) say they are sending community reps and they demand those reps be seated or the town governments will withdraw support for any RSU, I think Gendron will listen. What do you think?
4. Short of that, perhaps it is time for the towns to revolt. Maybe individual towns need to start talking on their own. What ever happened to good old Yankee spirit and gumption? For sure Varnum needs to go - the sooner the better. And maybe most of the SAD 63 Board should follow ASAP. They're certainly not doing any of the citizenry any good.
As noted in previous postings, the School Board Chairs from MSAD 63, Orrington, Dedham and Airline/CSD 8, along with Allen Snell, Superintendent from the Orrington School Department; Dan Lee, Superintendent from the Dedham School Department(and Brewer School District); and Ray Hart, Interim Superintendent from MSAD 63/Airline CSD 8 all met at the Holbrook Middle School on that date. Others in attendance were the Business Managers for SAD 63, Yvonne Mitchell, and Orrington, Lester Young. This meeting was reported in Don Varnum's Chairman's Report to the Board at the November School meeting on November 30th. The following is an except from Varnum's report dated 11/20/09 as it relates to the November 17th meeting.
Varnum stated "the purpose of the meeting was to find out who wished to join the RSU discussions/planning and to lay on the table any reservations that there might be regarding the formation of an RSU. As a result of this round table discussion, we felt that there were several questions that needed to be answered by Norman Higgins, a representative from the Department of Education who handles consolidation issues.
Superintendent Snell agreed to ask these questions:
1. May the makeup of the new RPC be different than the original law? I.E. Based on population and evaluation. Yes! Other RPC's have been granted permission to do differently. Mr. Higgins suggests including representation as stated in the law (i.e., municipal, school committee, community) but we can compose the RPC as we desire as long as it is reasonable. (Writer's note: It appears that Mr. Higgins, the Commissioner's rep suggested including cummunity representation BUT those at the meeting - school board chairs and superintendents preferred to eliminate them.)
2. May school committee chairs appoint representatives for RPC? As long as municipal input is considered.
3. Do we need to have a facilitator? No! (Writer's note: A facilitator is usually beneficial to insure that everyone gets to be heard and that no one "voice or opinion" gets to dominate.)
4. May we state in the plan that a specific school will not close? Yes, as long as everyone agrees.
5. Will the commissioner pay for the second vote? Fund(sic) are gone. (Writer's note: that means us taxpayers get to pay for everything associated with this go-round...the printing and mailings to announce...the locations and Public Hearings to explain what is in the "Plan" as well as how much it is going to cost as well as the political structure - aka where the power will be to control the school union. AND THEN the cost of setting up the voting and counting the votes.)
6. Otis-What is the status? There was a frank discussion about their situation. There were several concerns that gave each of us the feeling that they would be a better fit with RSU-24. (Ellsworth area.) Given the short time frame to get all the tasks completed and plan approved for our RSU, we felt it is best if they pursued that avenue again. (Writer's note: This means without Otis it will be easier to just "cut and paste" from the old RSU - the one where we were going to consolidate with Brewer - and call that the "New RSU". With Otis we would really have to plan how we would add those student is - or send students to that school, which the Town of Otis owns (!!!) and add in that additional revenue - and calculate that additional tax base - and share the power on the RSU Board with Otis. Oh Darn. And BTW - they just hired a new Interim Superintendent. He's good, I hear. Maybe that's why Orrington isn't too happy.)
The discussion continued about choosing partners and the consensus among the board chairs is that Orrington, Dedham, CSD-8 and SAD-63 should be partners. THe next step is to have the "letters of intent" approved by each School Committee/Board of Directors. To that end, Orrington is trying to schedule a meeting November 30th, CSD-8 approved their letter on the 18th (of November), Dedham is trying to schedule a meeting on December 1at and it is on the agenda for our (SAD 63) meeting on the 30th.
Further discussion centered on those chosen for the RPC should be those who are ready to devote sufficient time and energy, with a co-operative attitude and prior experience toward constructing a workable plan." (Writer's note: see #6 about re: "cut and paste".)
So let's look at what has happen since:
1. At the SAD 63 November 30th meeting, the School Board approved sending TWO "letters of intent" to the Commissioner - one with and one without the Town of Otis as a potential partner in the RSU. (This was the Board's intent - even if it wasn't Mr. Varnum's or those at the November 17'th meeting.)
2. Varnum did NOT inform the School Board - or the members of the Boards of Selectmen from Clifton or Eddington who were in attendance that Superintendent Allen Snell from the Orrington School Department had also been authorized at the November 17th meeting to write a letter to Commissioner Gendron requesting permission to eliminate the Citizen/community representative on the RPC teams from the potential partners of the RSU. Such a letter was received by the Commissioner's office on December 15, 2009. Mr. Snell sent copies of his letter to both Dan Lee and Ray Hart. The following is the body of the response from the Commissioner:
"Dear Superintendent Snell:
This letter is in response to the "Membership for RPC" template received by my office on December 15,2009 for representation on the reorganization committee for Orrington, Dedham, MSAD 63 and the Airline CSD. The representation appears to be equitable, based on resident population and state valuation, and therefore, I approve its use.
If my office can be of further assistance as you proceed with your planning, please contact Norm Higgins or Ray Poulin of the Reorganization Team. They can be reached by phone at 624-6802."
Signed Susan A. Gendron, Commissioner of Education
Attached was a chart which was obviously prepared by and faxed from the office of the Orrington Superintendent. It is Titled:
"MEMBERSHIP for RPC
DEVELOPED and AGREED TO: FEBRUARY 6, 2009
and on NOVEMBER 17, 2009
(note these dates because the February 6, 2009 date is the same date shown on a letter prepared by Dan Lee nearly one year ago when he an RSU Board for Orrington, Dedham, SAD 63, Airline RSU Board [Ottis was not included then, either]. ALSO NOTE - this data was reportedly agreed on November 17, 2009 - the meeting at Holbrook School - data which was NOT reported in Varnum's November report to the SAD 63 Board report. This proposal was not referenced in any way in Varnum's November report to the Board.
This chart sets out how many RPC votes will be allocated per town (of the potential partners) NOTE: Otis is NOT represented on this chart. The allocated is based on population (as shown) and state property valuation - with a total RPC (and probable RSU Board) of 14-15 depending on whether Airline is allocated 1 or 2 votes.
Municipality Resident Pop. State Valuation RPC Votes
Clifton .................743........... 72,200,000........... 2 or 1
Eddington ........2052......... 157,250,000........... 2 or 2
Holden .............2827.......... 268,100,000........... 2 or 3
Orrington ........3526......... 332,150,000........... 4 or 4
Dedham ...........1460......... 261,350,000........... 3 or 3
Amherst ............230............. 4,300,000 )
Auroa ................121............. 17,600,000 )
Great Pond ........47 ............. 18,150,000 )........ 1 or 2
Osborn ...............69 ............ 13,000,000 )
Total: ......11,075 ....1,164,100,000...... 14 or 15
The problem(s) with this calculation are many.
1. This chart was based on the 2007 census. The population of these municipalities need to be updated and verified according to current data.
2. RPC "votes" are not even based on students who will be (are currently enrolled in K-8) classes. Note: Students enrolled in high schools are reportedly under the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the high schools where the students attend and therefore should not be included in the student poopulation of the RSU being discussed here. The RPC VOTES on this chart are being determined by "state valuation" meaning property values. Therefore, according to this chart, even though Dedham has only a popoulation of 1460 (and Holden has twice that poulation), Dedham would get 3 RPC votes and Holden would get only 2 RPC votes. Question: With the business and population growth Holden has been experiencing, does Holden believe its representation on the RPC (and probably the RSU Board) should be only two-thirds that of Dedham? What is/will be the student population ratio between Holden and Dedham in the new RSU? Two Holden students to three Dedham students?
Let's look at the proposed representation of Orrington on the RPC/RSU Board? Holden has a population of 2827 compared to Orrington's 3526. Should Orrington have twice as many votes when it only has 700 more in popoulation? Airline/CSD has a total population of 467. Clifton has nearly double that. Should their votes be equal? Does any of this sound right or equitable? This will ultimately come down to taxation, remember because the job of the school board is the MANAGE the district/union. This is business, after all. Sure Orrington want the biggest piece of the pie but is it right/equitable? This writer doesn't think so unless they have the largest number of students in the schools and are paying a proportionate amount of the taxes.
Some people on the SAD 63 Board started thinking that all three towns in SAD 63 should be thought of as one single entity - like Orrington is one single entity. Wrong. Eddington is separate from Clifton which is separate from Holden. Otherwise Holden would not have wanted that land so badly now would it? What if Eddington and/or Clifton just decided they were so fed up with Don Varnum they were going to up and leave SAD 63 and Holden - forget partnering with Orrington and Dedham (neither of whom have filed their letters of intent, BTW) - and decided to start talking with Old Town and Otis. Those people on the SAD 63 School Board who think all three towns in SAD 63 are one entity would start to see we are three INDEPENDENT towns with three independent tax bases. And frankly, I think it's time for some independence. Of course, it's also time for some backbone and accountability from members of the Board.
There are members on the Board who need to resign for health reasons. And I'm not just referring to Varnum because of his reportedly recent heart attack. Some members simply cannot do -or do not want to do - the business of the Board. The majority of the Board members appear to be more interested in being finished with their Board positions than fulfilling them. Other than Karen Clark, no one seems to be willing to speak in opposition to the totalitarian form of government Varnum has exhibited for the past year(s). The fact that he waited until the end of the December meeting to announce his resignation as Chair (but retained his position on the Board) shows he still intends to control and not from afar. He even refused the Public Access at the beginning of the meeting when he knew there would be voiced opposition by members of the public in attendance to some of his recent actions.
Jackie Smallwood from Holden had accepted the position of community representative on the RPC; however, at the December School Board meeting she submitted a two-page letter of resignation which is alleged to have stated she would not rubber-stamp what the School Board chairs go off and do on their own and then come back and expect the RPC's to just accept. Good for you, Jackie. Now we just need to let the community voters know they should do the same!
As for the town of Orrington: They don't want the town of Otis to be part of the RSU. They have been blatant in stating the fact. People in Eddington, Clifton and Holden need to remember two things:
1. Reps from Otis, including their Interim Superintendent came to SAD 63 School Board meetings and asked to join us - to be one of our partners in this new RSU. Orrington has never shown up for anything!
2. Orrington stated at the November 17th meeting they would decide on November 30th as to whether they wanted to join us. As of January 1 there is no information Orrington has even sent their letter of intent to the Commission that they want to be a partner with SAD 63...seems they're pi**ed that SAD 63 sent a letter of intent that did include Otis. Tough Snow! Dedham hasn't been able to make up their mind either, it seems.
3. Seems as I recall the mess with the RSU a year ago - no one like the idea of consolidating with Brewer OR with Orrington. As I recall there were BIG issues regarding Trust. Some how I think those same issues should still be on the table. Seems to me, what with what's been going on of late, Orrington has the idea they get to run the show (along with Varnum) and we've had all of that we can financially afford. More than we can afford, frankly!
3. SOOoo, why can't SAD 63 get off the dime? Isn't there a single leader among them? Do they have to wait for Varnum now that he's (A) refused to do anything since last June, (B) whinned that he's been trying since last July to get something started (BS), and (C) screwed us all with that November 17th "agreement." There is NOTHING in Gendron's letter that commits any one of the towns to that RPC formula. If the towns (are you listening Selectmen?) say they are sending community reps and they demand those reps be seated or the town governments will withdraw support for any RSU, I think Gendron will listen. What do you think?
4. Short of that, perhaps it is time for the towns to revolt. Maybe individual towns need to start talking on their own. What ever happened to good old Yankee spirit and gumption? For sure Varnum needs to go - the sooner the better. And maybe most of the SAD 63 Board should follow ASAP. They're certainly not doing any of the citizenry any good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
