[Local-Maine-Schools] A summary of what happened yesterday in detail

Wed Jun 6 16:49:27 UTC 2007

I would not say so much that she has control over the size but she does have
initial say over whether the proposed district size fits the requirements of
the statute. We have her word that ours (with Trenton) does and that she
will put it in writing so that it will survive her departure.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Margaret T. Jeffery, Esq." <mjeffery1 at gwi.net>
To: <atlee at umd.edu>; "Local Maine Schools List"
<local-maine-schools at mainetalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Local-Maine-Schools] A summary of what happened yesterday in
detail


> Thank you for the synopsis.  Very helpful.  What do you mean when you say
> that it depends on what happens in conference with the two houses? This is
> a step that I am unaware of.
>
> Do you know of a mechanism for ensuring that h.s. budget can be voted on
> locally?
>
> The last provision that you mention, that the Commissioner has control
over
> the size of the units has me worried.  Is there any time limitation on the
> Commissioner's discretion in this, i.e. could Commissioner approve a
> district of 1700 this year, then in 3 years (when the savings promised
> doesn't materialize) decide that the district has to consist of more
> schools in order to reach the savings necessary?
>
> Margaret
>
> At 11:06 AM 6/6/2007 -0400, Dick Atlee wrote:
> >We certainly would have been very much better off if the alleged
> >"problem" had been addressed in a more functional way.  But the
> >situation is not nearly as bad as it would have been without the efforts
> >of many people.  Not the least of these are our own (MDI's) Hannah
> >Pingree and Ted Koffman in the house.  But everything that happened
> >yesterday played out in the context of the showstoppers -- the Rural
> >Caucus was huge in this, in proposing changes and being the legislative
> >equivalent the Green Monster in Fenway, and Dennis Damon, who put
> >himself on the line in a key role on the Senate side.
> >
> >The high points of what happened yesterday (culminating in the final
> >"Amendment T") is as follows, described in detail below with section
> >references for those afficiandos who want to dig deeper.  All of this,
> >of course, depends on what happens in the Senate and then in conference
> >with the two houses.
> >
> >    1. Local financial control of elementary schools by municipalities
> >    2. Reduced punishment for non-compliance
> >    3. Timeline extended (sort of)
> >    4. Removal of specific budget reductions required in initial plan
> >    5. Softening of the 80-district maximum
> >
> >1. LOCAL FINANCIAL CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
> >
> >This was nailed into place by alterations to two provisions:
> >
> >Section XXXX-13 section1481: "Notwithstanding any provisions of law to
> >the contrary, a municipality within a regional school unit may raise
> >money and direct the spending of the funds, to a school serving children
> >from kindergarten to no higher than grade 9."
> >
> >Section XXXX-13 section 1478: "A regional unit board may create local
> >school committees and specify their powers and duties." (The key change
> >here was to remove a final phrase: "not in conflict with this Title,"
> >which left open the possibility of attacks on the idea of local control
> >through some unexpected loophole.)
> >
> >These guarantee the right of a municipality to create a budget,
> >appropriate the money, and raise it from the town, eliminating the loss
> >of control that would have resulted from requiring all this to be done
> >on a district-wide basis.  This applies to K-8 schools only; the
> >required high school is handled district wide.
> >
> >The approval of this budget requires a referendum, the downside of which
> >is that, unlike a town meeting or council hearing, there is no
> >opportunity to explain why the budget is what it is, allowing people
> >with no knowledge of education to vote on it (and we've seen what that
> >can do in the legislature).  However, the original heavily-skewed
> >wording required for the ballot in such a referendum in the case where
> >more money was budgeted than the insufficient level defined by the state
> >has been removed, so voters are no longer told that said that if they
> >vote YES their taxes will go up (not necessarily) while not explaining
> >WHY those funds may be essential.  (This is the now famous "apple pie or
> >a rock" choice.)
> >
> >REMAINING CONSIDERATIONS ON LOCAL CONTROL
> >
> >(a) The Referendum:  One question is whether the referendum itself can
> >be held locally.  Commissioner Gendron assured us that yes, that is the
> >case for K-8 in this scenario, that a separate vote would be held for
> >the high school and central office (presumably this could be on the same
> >ballot).  But for anyone whose trust in that source has been frayed, for
> >whom the motto "In Legislative Language We Trust" is king, the lack of
> >clarity on this point in The Language could be a point of concern.
> >
> >(b) School Property and Debt: The bizarre language requiring the
> >district to take over school property from municipalities, leaving them
> >with whatever portion of their debt was not state subsidized, has not
> >been removed.  This leaves open the possibility that towns will be
> >raising money for schools that they don't own and on which they owe a
> >lot of money.
> >
> >(c) District decides: The existence of local control hinges on the
> >granting of those powers by the District Board.  The composition of this
> >board is thus absolutely vital to the future of local control.  For
> >districts that were previously popular Unions, this wouldn't be a
problem.
> >
> >(d) Finer points of governance: It is true that aspects of K-8
> >governance not controlled by a budget will be under the control of the
> >district.  Curriculum control is a good example, but given that a high
> >school is now required in a district, the idea that all students should
> >come to the high-school on an equal footing does make educational sense.
> >
> >2. REDUCED PUNISHMENT FOR NONCOMPLIANCE (Section XXXX-32)
> >
> >(a) Loss of minimum state contribution -- now you only lose half.
> >(b) Loss of state contribution for system administration -- now you only
> >lose half
> >(c) Small schools lose their isolated-school-adjustment -- now they don't
> >(d) The punitive 5% mil-rate increase has been dropped
> >
> >3. TIME LINE EXTENSION -- WELL, SORT OF (Section XXXX-35, sub 7-8)
> >
> >In the initial language, plans had to be submitted before December 15 of
> >this year, and voted on by January 15, 2008 (with another vote November
> >2008 if the first failed).  The deadline has been moved back in the
> >sense that plans can be submitted after December 15 but have to be voted
> >on by June 10, 2008.  This amounts to less than a year for planning a
> >massive change in how things are done.
> >
> >4. REDUCTIONS REQUIRED IN INITIAL PLAN REMOVED (Section XXXX-35, sub 6:F)
> >
> >The original language required the reorganization plan to state 5% cuts
> >in transportation, special education, and facilities and maintenance and
> >a cut in system administration to 50% of the state's EPS (recommended)
> >amount (very severe for anyone already spending more than EPS.  Friday
> >hat 50% was increased to 100%; then yesterday both restrictions were
> >removed, with a more reasonable:
> >
> >XXXX-35:6:F. "The plan must address how the school administrative unit
> >will reorganize administrative functions, duties and noninstructional
> >personnel so that the projected expenditures of the reorganized school
> >unit in fiscal year 2008-09 for system administration, transportation,
> >special education and facilities and maintenance will not have an
> >adverse impact on the instructional program."
> >
> >And the section invoking this (Section XXXX-35 sub 4:B) now says:  "Each
> >SAU shall exercise due diligence and act in good faith in developing a
> >plan that meets the requirements of the Part and furthers the intent of
> >the Legislature to achieve sustainable, long-term administrative
> >efficiencies."
> >
> >5. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DISTRICTS SOFTENED (Section XXXX-35 sub 7:D)
> >
> >Although the language still mentions 80 districts, one section appears
> >to soften this: "The Commissioner of Education may not find that a plan
> >for reorganization does not meet the requirements of the Part solely on
> >the ground that a finding that it meets the requirements would cause the
> >number of regional school units in the State to exceed  80."
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Local-Maine-Schools mailing list
> >To send a message to the list, write to:
> >  Local-Maine-Schools at mainetalk.org
> >To unsubscribe or change subscription settings:
> >  http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools_mainetalk.org
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Local-Maine-Schools mailing list
> To send a message to the list, write to:
>  Local-Maine-Schools at mainetalk.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription settings:
>  http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools_mainetalk.org
>
>