[Local-Maine-Schools] Education Committee: January 16: (ballot language and what happens to non-reorganized CSDs)

[Brian Hubbell]

Education Committee work session
Wednesday morning, January 16, 2008

This morning the Committee picked up with its list of the five 'easy'
pieces which it hopes to reconcile with a "non-controversial"
Committee Legislative Request.

The first item was reconciling the ballot language that is presently
in two different sections of LD.499

The allocated language in § 1461 (5) says:

"Article: Do you favor approving the school reorganization plan
prepared by the (insert name) Reorganization Planning Committee to
reorganize (insert names of affected school administrative units) into
a regional school unit, with an effective date of (insert date)?
Yes No"

A "YES" vote means that you approve of the (municipality or school
administrative unit) joining the proposed regional school unit. The
financial penalties under the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 20-A,
section 15696 to the existing school administrative units will no
longer apply to the proposed regional school unit."

While the unallocated language in Sec. XXXX-36 (8) says:

A "YES" vote means that you approve of the (municipality or school
administrative unit) joining the proposed regional school unit, which
will be provided with the following incentives:
More favorable consideration in approval and funding of school
construction projects; and
Eligibility for additional financial support for reorganization costs.
A "NO" vote means that you do not approve of the (municipality or
school administrative unit) joining a regional school unit, which will
result in the existing (municipality or school administrative unit)
receiving the following penalties:
Less favorable consideration in approval and funding of school
construction projects; and
A reduction in state funding of education costs in an amount estimated
to be $_______ for school year 200_ and $______ for school year 200_,
with the possibility of ongoing penalties for continued failure to
join an approved regional school unit. Reductions in state education
funding will likely result in an increased mill rate expectation to
meet the local share of education costs."

As Geoff Herman had previously reminded the Committee, the explanation
in the unallocated language is arguably substantially biased in that
it describes the consequences of a 'Yes' vote merely as being the
self-evident fact, while it goes to great lengths to describe the
negative consequences of a "No" vote.  Moreover, it is not at all
clear how the specific penalties are calculated (although Jim Rier
testified that the Department is expecting to take on those
calculations.)

Senator Mills suggested that the unallocated language was the result
of specific previous consideration and ought to be maintained.
Representative Farrington argued in favor of keeping the language
clean and neutral, as there were very likely countervailing drawbacks
to voting "yes" that could not be easily itemized either.

In the end, the Committee voted for the more "neutral" approach of the
allocated language.  But, at Rep Makas's suggestion they couldn't
resist altering the ballot wording from:

 Do you favor approving the school reorganization plan...?

to what Rep Makas characterized this "less threatening" language:

 Do you favor approving the school *administration* reorganization plan...?

Notwithstanding the fact that what's really being voted on is in fact
a school *governance* reorganization plan.

**************

The second item from the five-issue list was what happens to CSDs and
K-8 SADs that do not approve reorganization plans.

This is not as simple a matter as one might think, as LD499 repeals
that laws that support SADs, Unions, and CSDs.  So, while it's
possible (and perhaps generally expected) that municipal school
administrative units, after July 2009, may continue operating as they
currently are but with their state subsidies reduced by penalty, it
seems very unclear what would happen to joint municipal school
ventures presently operating as CSDs, even if they non-reorganized
SAUs were somehow declared to be de facto RSUs or are somehow by
sleight-of-hand be allowed to "continue as they are" as the Committee
seems inclined to hope.

The Commissioner happened by the Committee Room during this part of
the discussion and said that in her view the larger concern is that
the reorganization law requires comprehensive K-12 education and that
this is not achievable in the case of isolated K-8 SADs or CSDs which
vote down plans and so are left without a "guaranteed" relation to a
high school.

She also reminded Committee members that the Department shortly will
be putting forward "substantive rule changes" regarding chapter 125
and 127 regarding comprehensive requirements for high school
curriculum.

When the Committee reconvenes at 1:00, they hope to resume discussion of LD 1932