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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment