"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.