Last Wednesday the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) of the SAD 63 School Board met at Holbrook Middle School. It will meet again this Wednesday at 5:30pm.
Last week's meeting resulted in the largest turnout of any School Board meeting or S/B committee meeting, other than the annual Public Hearing for the upcoming proposed annual school district budget, we've seen in several years. There were over 14 citizens/parents in addition to district employees and FAC members in attendance.
FAC members in attendance included: S/B Chair Therese Anderson from Eddington who is automatically an Ad Hoc member; Jackie Smallwood, citizen rep from Holden; Holden Selectman Harvey; S/B member Mario Teisl from Holden who is the Budget & Finance Committee Chair; Interim Superintendent Hart; Ralph Russell, citizen rep from Eddington who is also the B Basketball coach in the district and working for the district's technical operations; Sylvia Ellis, S/B member from Holden; Yvonne Mitchell, SAD 63 Business Manager; Fred Rosenberg, citizen rep from Clifton; Penny Peasly, Selectwoman from Clifton; and Don Varnum, S/B member from Holden.
Mario Teisl asked those citizens who were in attendance to hold their comments and suggestions until AFTER the FAC had completed its agenda. NOTE: Those comments and suggestions were finally allowed after 7pm. Teisl also stated that the purpose of the FAC was to put all possibilities for reducing the district's budget "on the table for consideration" and that no decisions would be made until taken to the full Board. The next School Board meeting is Monday, March 22.
The first order of business appeared to be the issue of who/how to fill the Interim Superintendent's position that will become vacant effective July 1, 2010 with the termination of Mr. Hart's contract on June 30, 2010. In the course of discussion, Hart explained he would like to have his successor named ASAP so that person could "shadow" Hart during the remaining months for meetings, decisions, etc.
Teisl broached the possibility of Dave Anderson accepting the position of Interim Superintendent, since Anderson had held the position prior to Hart being hired. The FAC asked Anderson, who was present, if he was willing to accept the Interim Superintendent position. Anderson said he was "under certain conditions" which he was asked to out forward. Anderson stated that he like his position as Principal of the Holden School and believed that the Principal should be a presence in his school. As Superintendent there were responsibilities that would require him to be in the District's Central Office - currently located at Holbrook Middle School.
The FAC stated they were prepared to spend $49K (thousand) to relocate the Central Services to the Holden School. ISSUE: At a time when we are trying to reduce current costs by $800,000, why would we agree to SPEND $49,000.00 to temporarily relocate the Central Office to Holden School? The Interim Superintendent is a temporary position, isn't it? Or is the relocation of the Central Office intended to be a permanent relocation? If so, WHY?
The argument that Teisl (and Hart) were making for Anderson (and it was practically a "done deal" to hear the discussion) was that it was to save money in the budget. (Otherwise, district policy clearly states that recruitment and hiring of even an interim position is the responsibility of the district's Personnel Committee - a fact that was brought to the attention of the FAC once the "audience" was allowed to speak.)
The former superintendent made a full-time salary that began at $77,000/year and ended at $87,447/year plus very generous benefits. The Interim Superintendent has been paid $600.00/week - at a rate of $200.00 per full day which includes an extensive list of meetings requiring the Superintendent's attendance. Mileage to/from Holbrook School to attend meetings was included as well as fees for required workshops and/or meetings as the S/B deemed mandatory. A weekly presence in all three schools has been required by the S/B even though it has been flexible depending on the needs of the district of S/B. At the rate of $600. per week times 4 weeks per month times 12 months per year, the rate is $28,800 for a year. This allows for a month's vacation. Add $49,000 (to move Central Office to Holbrook School) to $28,800 (the Interim Superintendent salary) and you get $77,808. which is very close to what the former superintendent received her first year as full-time superintendent and only $10,000. less than her compensation her last year. We should be seriously questioning the wisdom of the $49,000 expenditure.
HOWEVER - if we are going to look at positions in order to see where money can be saved, let us look at the position of the Business Manager. That contract, originally signed 7/25/08, is a three-year contract commencing July 1, 2008 and scheduled to end June 30, 2010. While the position provides certain services to CSD 8 for a separate compensation, the compensation package provided by SAD 63 includes the following:
A salary of no less than $72,800.00 (documented compensation as of 2007-08, an increase of $2,400 from the previous year);
NOTE: This is equal to the salary of two of the Principals
Thirteen days of paid sick leave per year accumulative to a total of 130 days;
The position has the option of participating in the District's 304B Plan. The position may set aside a maximum of $15,500 and no less than 3% for her salary each year and have it matched by the District. And every year after her after her second year of employment in the position, the District will continue the 3% match;
The position is entitled to Personal Leave at any time at the discretion of the Superintendent;
The position receives health and accident insurance coverage as follows: 100% toward Full Family Medical, $335 toward Dental and 100% towards a Death and Disability Insurance Policy; NOTE: This is higher that that provided to the Principals.
The position shall be entitled to at least the same level of all benefits that are provided to the teachers;
The position is entitled to six (6) weeks of paid vacation to be taken at her discretion other than the time immediately before and during the passage of the School Budget. Unused accrued vacation may be drawn down annually with the permission of the Superintendent, unpaid unused vacation is payable to the position upon termination of the contract;
A bonus of $5,000 will be granted to the position for completion of the mutually agreed upon goal of: One percent (1%) of the 2008-2009/2009-2010) Budget is saved) and a Successful completion of the (required) audit.
In light of the fact that the position received a $7,000.00 compensation increase from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, it is reasonable to believe the 2009-2010 compensation is higher than $75,000.
SO - this writer's question is: Why aren't we looking for an Interim Business Manager for the same reason we are looking for an Interim Superintendent? Better Yet - why aren't we looking to advertise/recruit a new Business Manager in the $50K annual compensation range. There are PLENTY of highly qualified people, many currently employed, who would jump at that salary and benefits who would be willing to produce the Financial statement formats people have been asking for the past two years, who would produce accurate, detailed MONTHLY statements (you needed to hear the explanation for the projected increase in Maintenance salaries to understand THIS). And we could save upwards of $25K or more.
Now the one promising idea that WAS presented last week...
Hart stated he had met someone who offered an idea worth $200,000. The district could contract with one high school for a flat tuition - to set a benchmark for high school tuition to be paid by the district (it could be Brewer High School or Bangor.) District students could still exercise the "option choice" and go to any high school. BUT, if the tuition was higher than that benchmark, the family would have to pick up any costs above the benchmark. Anderson directed Hart to do two things before this week's meeting: (1) check out the details of that proposal, (2) check out the legality as it would apply to "school choice" districts. It is possible that this issue would have to be brought before the voters of the district to be confirmed.
There was was quite a bit of discussion about the future economic picture. Hart stated it will be very hard this year but even harder next year - and beyond horrid next year if we don't take several difficult steps this year. His projections are that it will be 3-4 years before "things" will get better. He stated that looking at closing one of the schools may have to be addressed - and the Eddington School was the ONLY school mentioned.
Hart said that the district may find that closing the Eddington School may save the district $520K+/-. Therese pointed out that the issue would probably have to be brought before the voters in Eddington. Hart stated that, if that were the case, part of the issue would have to include (for Eddington voters) that Eddington would have to pick up the $520K on top of their regular school budget allocation if the voters turned down the school closure. NOTE THIS: According to Hart, ONLY Eddington property owners would have to pick up that $520K on top of the Eddington share of the school budget. Granted, the meeting didn't suggest the school closure THIS year, but the gist of the discussion was that the decision might be needed in one to two years out (and there was quite a bit of discussion about consolidating grades). BTW - Nowhere was there any hint of closing the Holden School.
Based on the foretelling of closing the Eddington School (and that Charles Baker, Selectman from Eddington was a "no show), I called Russell Smith last Thursday. One of my questions to Russell was, "What would be the impact on property values if the Eddington School was closed?" I'm still waiting for an answer.
IN THE MEANTIME: Commissioner Gendron had not answered the Letters of Intent filed by Orrington and Dedham in December (even though state law required a response in 12days.) Commissioner Gendron had not responded as of March 3 to Chairwoman Anderson's letter from SAD 63 filed in January requesting direction because of the Orrington/Dedham situation. The Legislature had not responded to Commissioner Gendron's petition filed last year to allow districts with fewer than 1200 students to become RSUs. BUT the Legislature was not willing to defer tax penalties to those districts were having problems forming an RSU. EVEN OUR SENATOR RICHARD ROSEN WAS VOTING AGAINST DEFERRAL!
Clifton's Board of Selectmen have sent letters to Senator Rosen and House Represenative Ben Pratt (Eddington) requesting they attend one of the FAC meetings to see the difficulties the district and voters are facing. You readers might also want to participate in sending such an "invitation." It is expected that Eddington Selectmen will do the same. Remaining meetings in March are scheduled for:
Wednesday, March 10
Thursday, March 18
Wednesday, March 24
All are scheduled for 5:30pm at the Holbrook School.
BTW - Hart didn't think much of my idea that the teachers contribute 3-5-10% of their pay (maybe the Principals, too, since they're making over $70,000/year plus benefits). He felt since "this country bailed out GM, Wall Street Banks, etc. maybe those on Social Security should contribute 5-10% of their income." (No mention that many of the folks around here are retired and living on less than $20,000/year, lost over 40% of their retirement savings, some are disabled and can't work and many are in their 70s/80s. Of course he doesn't live around here and doesn't know who really is paying the district's bills. Guess none of that was relevant.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment