The meeting, held at the Holbrook Middle School this past Wednesday, had many interesting moments. The level of productivity will have to be determined by the individuals in attendance and those reviewing the information passed on by them.
First, the "official parties" at the table: Ralph Russell, citizen rep from Eddington; Jackie Smallwood, citizen rep from Holden; Selectman Harvey from Holden; Mario Teisl, School Board member from Holden and Chairman of the S/B's Budget & Finance Committee (BFC); Ray Hart, Interim Superintendent; Don Varnum, School Member from Holden and apparently the new BFC member to replace Therese Anderson who was a committee member but, as the new S/B Chairman cannot sit as a committee member; Yvonne Mitchell, SAD 63 Business manager; Fred Rosenberg, citizen rep from Clifton; Penny Peasley, Selectwomen from Clifton; and Charles Baker, Selectman from Eddington. Sylvia Ellis, School Board member from Holden and the third BFC member was absent.
Meeting was called to order at 5:38pm and the Minutes of the March 3rd meeting were approved by the group as a whole. Teisl read aloud a letter he had drafted for the group's review to Senator Richard Rosen (a duplicate also had been prepared for Representative Ben Pratt) which, in general, explains the situation of SAD 63 and invites (each elected official) to attend a joint B&FC/Financial Advisory Committee Meeting. As the Legislature is currently is session, it is unknown if either or both will attend, but it is felt as elected representatives they should be aware of the serious financial situation the school district is facing - primarily caused by the Legislature and Commissioner Gendron (although that is not specifically pointed out in the letters). Selectwoman Peasley read the letter "of invitation" the Clifton Board of Selectmen has already send to the two gentlemen. NOTE: Area voters, taxpayers and district teachers are also encouraged to send similar letters. Addresses are provided at the conclusion of this posting.
Teisl pointed out the the joint committee (B&FC/FAC) is only looking at alternatives at this point. No decisions have been made as yet. The joint committee is doing Due Diligence this year - being TRANSPARENT in its considerations so that when members attend their various Town Meetings and questions are asked (re: School Budget) committee members will be able to answer whatever questions may come up.
Teisl also pointed out that he had done some research following the March 3 meeting because a S/B member in the audience had pointed out S/B policy states that any hiring (of an Interim Superintendent) falls under the responsibility/authority of the S/B's Personnel Committee and not the B&FC. Teisl stated the S/B member was correct; however there is no Personnel Committee. NOTE: That is because policy states a Personnel Committee is appointed only as needed. In fact, other than for the position of Superintendent, all personnel are (usually) recruited by the Superintendent and then recommended to the S/B by the Superintendent. But the S/B's Personnel Committee is responsible for advertising, interviewing, voting for and hiring the Superintendent BECAUSE the Superintendent is the EMPLOYEE of the S/B. Why the S/B did not appoint a Personnel Committee back in January when the new Chair was elected - so as to be pre-active - is a question we all should be asking since the matter of the Interim Superintendent's and Business Manager's contracts expiring June 30, 2010 has been known for over a year.
Teisl also said that he was going to utilize some latitude in his position of Chair. While some issues can only be acted on by S/B members (and therefore only the B&FC), he was include to consider the FAC an integral component of the decisions and evaluations of what needed to be looked at and evaluated. Therefore, he was inclined whenever permissible to consider the workings of the group as a "joint committee." He asked for a show of hands to indicate approval. It was unanimously approved by those in attendance.
Therefore, as Teisl noted, the Joint committee - or the B&FC, in reality - does not have the authority to make any decision regarding WHO should/would be placed in the Interim Superintendent position. The B&FC could only recommend to the FULL S/B regarding any candidate for the position. However, Teisl stated, "under special circumstances", the B&FC could waive traditional methods of advertising (for the position). NOTE: It should be pointed out that since Ellis did not attend this meeting, the legality of any B&FC action could be challenged because it requires ALL three members of the committee to be in attendance to conduct any committee business. So while Teisl did make the motion to recommend to the Full S/B that Dave Anderson be hired as the Interim Superintendent effective July 1 - and Don Varnum seconded the motion - and the two of them considered the motion carried, because Ellis was not there..... Anyway, the meeting went forth and Teisl acknowledged that without Ellis in attendance, anything the B&FC did was "advisory only."
It was pointed out that should Anderson be appointed by the S/B to the position, he would receive $75,000 in salary for his position as principal of Holden school, $15,000 as Interim Superintendent (unlike the $45,000 which Hart stated he has been receiving), and one other figure for something this writer didn't hear - maybe mileage to the numerous meetings and the required visitations to the other two schools (Holbrook and Eddington).
Hart stated "he had taken off the table" the elimination of the superintendent's secretary's position.
Hart was then asked to report on his "assignments" from the previous meeting. His first order of "information" was to state that he didn't know where the idea had come from that it would cost $49,000. to move the Central Services office from Holbrook School to Holden School. Hart said it wouldn't cost anything because district staff could move the Central Services Office themselves and it would cost anything. NOTE: Several people had written down his statements re: the cost from the March 3 meeting which is why it had been repeated and "discussed" in several circles.
Hart also reported the original concept of contracting (with Brewer) for a base tuition and that parents of students attending any other high school charging a higher tuition would have to pay the difference out of their own pocket did not appear to have the benefit of $200,000. it originally was thought to have. The actual benefit looked to be more along the lines of $83,000 or thereabouts. NOTE: This subject came up later when Kevin Mills, S/B member from Holden who was in the audience, brought up the matter. I'm bringing it up here out of chronological order to keep issue information together. First: Voters in each town would have to vote in a special Referendum as to the base tuition/parents pay the costs above that amount if their student attends a different high school. Then: Kevin pointed out that it was logical any contract with Brewer would result in Brewer requiring SAD 63 to turnover the "technology funds" that were eliminated from the SAD 63 budget last year ($86,000). Immediately, Hart wanted that issue discarded because it was separate from the tuition issue. "Apples and oranges." But it wasn't. And Teisl was caught in the middle. Comments from the audience showed that Kevin had a genuine issue. And the voters certainly would have a right to know ALL of the factors before voting. NOTE: Earlier in the evening's discussion, Hart had stated that if he had been permitted to say anything at the Public Hearing last May when voters were deciding to eliminated the $86,000 from the SAD 63 budget (because Brewer wasn't going forth with the program which would have required the funding to accompany SAD 63 students who were going on to Brewer High School), Hart would have opposed removing that money from the budget - because he would have used that money (our tax money) elsewhere. (!)
So - back to the issue - once it was acknowledged that there would be NO cost savings by contracting with Brewer High School, that issue was dropped like a rock.
Hart reported his contacts indicated no other district was interested in contracting with SAD 63 to provide SAD 63 Central Services. He did state he was waiting to hear back for a legal opinion regarding IF SAD 63 could contract for a base tuition (although with the issue of technology funds as noted above, that issue does not appear likely to go anywhere - at least with Brewer.)
Hart did point out that SAD 63, like the State of Maine, currently has UNFUNDED LIABILITIES, some of which are contractual obligations. It did take some time before he was willing to acknowledge that the "contractual obligation" are issues such as the district paying for advance degree courses taken by teachers already employed by the district and an item which can be negotiated in the contract currently "on the table." What wasn't discussed is that the two parties negotiating for the Board (aka Management) are Board Chairwoman Anderson - a university professor and teacher, and Hart. To be fair, Anderson does get the "There is no more money" picture. Hart, on the other hand, acknowledged Wednesday night, that he was the individual who, when he first became SAD 63 Superintendent, initiated the requirement that teachers take advanced courses and that the district pay for them. Somehow, the idea that he would advocate that cost be eliminated from the budget doesn't seem too promising. One unfunded liability is the district's Sick Bank. This writer believes other unfunded liabilities were listed by Hart but my notes do not include them. The current teachers' contract expires August 2010.
There was some feedback regarding any savings if the teachers took on 1% of the cost of their health insurance costs (single with children, family, etc.). After looking at the costs and how much that would ultimately cost the teachers in dollars annually compared to their income, it was thought to be too much of a hardship to ask of the teachers who already pick up a portion of those costs.
There was a suggestion that the contract negotiation could include options for teachers to choose from. That didn't seem to fly very high. The current expectation is that (according to the proposed budget) any new contracts will include NO pay increases. BUT, when the economic situation changes (maybe in four years according to Hart) pay raises will then compensate for time lost. In the meantime, there are some individuals who have contracts that will not expire in 2010 and those contracts do include an annual pay increase that must be honored.
Hart presented information regarding how costs had changed from original program mandates and cost-sharing, showing that while original costs had been shared more by the Federal and State government for special programs, those dollars had been reduced and the costs transferred to the local districts.
Selectwoman Peasley stated her community had a population of 759 people (of which approximately 150 are children attending SAD 63 schools). She further stated her town office currently has several pages of names of towns people who are delinquent in 2009-2010 property taxes. The implication was clear: If they can't pay what they owed for 2009-2010, there should be not expectation they will be able to pay even higher property taxes for 2010-2011. This blog posted similar information in recent days relating to the town of Eddington.
The citizen rep from Holden did provide some significant contributions. She had taken the proposed budget developed by the Business Manager and reviewed it line-by-line, comparing it to previous years and seeing what amounts could be cut. (Comparative year line item Monthly Financial Statements have been requested for at least two years from the Business Manager - requests that have gone ignored.) Through this careful review - finding a few thousand dollars here and several hundreds of dollars there, the citizen rep totaled $100,000. in possible cost savings that could be made in the 2010-2011 budget. It was the most beneficial aspect of the meeting and several members at the table acknowledged it as such. Others not so much. This writer will leave to the reader to figure out who that might have been. Maybe you had to be there.
There was some discussion about bringing payroll back into Central Office - for a contracted savings of $6,500. Many people believe the computer program already owned by the district is capable of producing the payroll once the Business Manager keys in the data - and it would be immediately capable of correcting any errors instead of making the employee wait two weeks for a corrected check. NOTE: Payroll used to be done in house and any errors were immediately corrected. And it didn't take $6,500 of taxpayer money and employee hardship to get the job done - just someone in the Business Office to do the job.
There was some extensive discussion about moving the 4th grade to Holbrook, even though there appear to be many parents who are not in agreement or happy about the idea. The citizen rep from Holden felt it will impact the young children in areas of learning, emotions and socially. She wanted to know if there were any psychological or educational studies to support children at the age of 4th graders in schools with 7th and 8th graders. it should be noted that some people spoke up to say that the young ones rode on the same school buses with the older students. Teisl said he would try to find some research information at the U of Maine/Orono.
The citizen rep from Clifton asked what if the S/B closed Holden School instead of Eddington School. THAT went up in smoke! Then the joint group sent its meeting schedule:
March 18 - Thursday
March 22 - School Board Meeting
March 24 had to be changed - moved to March 30 but that will be changed because it is the date for the Eddington Town Meeting. Will Post next week of new date.
April 7 - Wednesday. Final Budget has to be done
May 12 - Wednesday - Public Hearing of SAD 63 Proposed Budget - Holbrook School
May 17 - Monday - Special Meeting of the School Board - Final Approval of the Budget
May 19 - Wednesday - Development and Posting of Warrant Articles by the School Board
June 3 - Thursday - Annual Budget Meeting of the School Board
June 8 - Tuesday - Referendum Vote by Voters in all three towns on the School Budget
At 7:30pm the people in the audience finally got to ask questions and/or comment. At this point approximately half of the people had left, including Charles Bake who had left at 6:55pm.
There were six people who wanted to comment or has questions. Some of the comments had to do with moving the 4th grade to Holbrook. No one was in favor. NOTE: It should be pointed out that while all three principals have been in attendance for these two meetings - from beginning to end - none have been asked their opinion about anything except Dave Anderson regarding taking the Interim Superintendent position. Of course, how could they say anything in opposition to Hart who is the one who writes up their annual evaluation and controls their position. Even though Teisl says the principals will EVENTUALLY get to put in their two cents worth, maybe it should be when Hart and the Business Manager are out of the room.
One member of the audience pointed out that what with the price of fuel, he finds it costly to see the school buses drive by with 2 or 3 students two or three times a day. He thinks a better way should be found to plan the transportation of students that is more fuel efficient.
Some one BEFORE me spoke up an wanted to know what was going to be done about the Business Manager contract that expires June 30 - and what about the Bonus that position gets. Hart stated that he removed bonuses from all contracts last year! Mr Hart MISSPOKE when he said that. He did eliminate the bonus clauses from those individuals who had one year contracts. Those individuals received new one-year contracts which do not currently contain bonus clauses. HOWEVER, the Business Manager had/has a THREE YEAR contract that does not expire until June 30 2010. And her contract did and currently DOES have a bonus clause. Just as those contracts he referenced earlier in the meetings belonging to individuals who will receive pay raises this year because it is "contractually obligated", so will the district be contractually obligated to pay the $5,000. bonus to the Business Manager providing she meets the two stipulations: saving 1% of the budget and provides a successful audit.
This writer will admit I piggy-backed on that speaker saying that since the joint committee has stated more than once that ALL ideas are on the table for consideration for the purpose of saving the district money - the S/B could be currently advertising the Business manager position for $50,000 and be saving $25,000. Well, one could tell this writer had more than tweaked the tail of a Sacred Cow - upset the treaty of a Favored Nation - picked on the Superintendent's Pet. Hart practically came across the table, eyes flashing to such an extent Teisl almost was having to restrain him. According to Hart, the current Business Manager is also the Food Manager, the Federal Grant Administrator and I couldn't keep track of how many other positions he said the district would have to hire at so many more thousands of dollars. Amazing. Not part of the Duties and Responsibilities of that position as currently written. And how many Federal grants have we received that other Business Managers don't do in the normal course of their job? And remember - we taxpayers are currently paying for an additional part-time person in that office "to help the Business Manager do her work." That was the justification for the extra day we funded in last year's budget...
Of course, Hart said HE did ll those jobs when he was Superintendent - AND there were four full-time additional people in that office helping him. Do any of your readers know any of this history? Considering that it was Hart who brought Regan on born as Assistant Superintendent and she didn't know anything (reportedly) about how to run the Business office.....and then he was the one recommending her as Superintendent when he retired the first time.... Maybe the SAD 63 S/B should keep a careful eye on how much they let him dictate to them - or us - who is left behind after June 30.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment