[Local-Maine-Schools] Education Committee: Jan. 16: Stretched RSUs and Beefed-up Unions

[Brian Hubbell]

So, is your pleasure a "Stretched RSU" or "Beefed-up Union"?

Those were the governance models in competition at this afternoon's
Education Committee work session.

The former concept found an articulate advocate in Senator Mills who
brought before the Committee clarifying language for LD 1932 which
Mills built over the past two days upon drafts worked up over the
weekend by Dick Spencer, which in turn were refinements of the
language that the Committee approved in concept last Friday.

As the shorthand description suggests, Mills' aim with this approach
is to enlarge the RSU law to its limit with the goal of accommodating
the model of local school autonomy proposed by MDI's reorganization
plan as far as possible without crossing the line that might require
the establishment of local committees as legal, fiscal, and employment
entities beyond the oversight and ultimate control of an RSU board --
a situation that Mills says could create "horrendous problems of
federalism".

To accomplish this, Mills' model, now embodied in LD 1932, reserves
"core functions" for the RSU -- mainly those of central administration
of business, curriculum, special education, transportation,
employment, and comprehensive RSU budget.  Beyond overall
administration of these categories, RSUs would be free to delegate to
their elected local school committees all other authorities of
oversight of school budget, policy, and employment within their
respective municipalities.

The key point in understanding the "stretched RSU" is that, while
extensive authority may be delegated from RSU boards to local
committees, in the event of substantial disagreement arising between
local and regional bodies -- regarding, for example, employment -- the
RSU board "trumps" the local.

Also, a base level of the K-8 budgets appears necessarily to be set by
the RSU board with the local committees having the option to augment
these through additional supplemental local assessment.  Mills holds
this as an important aspect to prevent irresponsible local boards or
towns from under-funding their schools.

Then, as a mirror-complement to this governance model, Senator
Mitchell presented an alternative: the "beefed-up union."  These units
would be subject to the same requirements of minimum size as RSUs and
the day-to-day central functions would be virtually identical to the
"stretched RSU".  But the critical difference would seem to be that in
the event of conflict between the regional and local boards, the
regional board would not "trump" and that regional business would be
fundamentally a matter of deliberated cooperation.

This is necessarily an inference of Senator Mitchell's intent, as her
presentation was in concept only and she offered no detailed language
to support the model. But, for the first time in a Committee setting
she made quite plain a commitment to this concept, which appears to
stake out the central ground between Mills' "Stretched RSU" and
Representative Edgecomb's "Union School Associations."

As Mills' concept is already folded into LD 1932, the vehicle which
the Committee is now reporting out (still nominally with 11-1 support)
 with the expectation that it constitutes the least controversial
basis for improving the law, the "Stretched RSU" now probably
represents one boundary in the field of debate which is now generally
expected to move to the legislative floor.  This means that the full
Senate and House will almost certainly debate amendments allowing
alternative governance models such as USAs and "Beefed-up Unions".

In that case, the only question is how far in the direction of
furthering local autonomy through optional governance models the full
legislature cares to go.

Other amendments are likely to be proposed as well.

Representative Sutherland, who now says that she's "not going to lose
any sleep over who hires whom in Kennebec County" (although she does
suggest that any optional governance model should not contain the word
"union") wants to amend the law either to allow for specific
permissive criteria allowing exceptions for geographical isolation or
to lower the minimum size for RSUs to accommodate several isolated
schools in her district who wish to remain independent.

Representative Harlow, whose motion to remove the requirement for
budget validation referenda in charter municipalities was voted down
by the Committee, will almost certainly bring that matter to the floor
for reconsideration.