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

Wed Jun 6 16:50:18 UTC 2007

The high school budget is approved district wide now. Why would you want
that changed?

----- 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
>
>