[Local-Maine-Schools] Repeal and the Legislature (was (Skip Greenlaw) YEAS...)

[Dick Atlee]

So if I understand the picture, the list looks like:

1. Consolidation for some places is wise.
2. There is a "role" for education to play in cost-cutting
    (as a creative new role for education, that's indeed cool!)
3. Something must be done and soon (I assume this refers to sustainable
    financing, and I've heard the argument that this is a way to protect
    us from yet another Palesky-Tabor attack)
4. Repeal by legislature is hopeless.

Does it make sense to point out (or am I, as is quite possible, missing 
something) to legislators that

1. "Consolidation in some places" "wisely" doesn't involve consolidation
    everywhere, any more than radiation treatment for cancer should be
    directed to the entire body.  We on MDI used to point out (starting
    with "Kill the Bill", which seems to have been abandoned wholesale)
    that the DoE should instead be tasked with surveying the state and
    addressing financial or educational problems where they are found.
    There WAS an initial amendment to that effect -- is it now gone?

2. Assuming education's cost-cutting-role to be a valid one, it seems
    that the DoE and the Governor are already doing that in spades,
    absent the existence of consolidation.  So why are the two linked so
    inextricably linked in the legislative mind (see item 3 to expand on
    that question)?

3. If, in fact, as seems from the data to be the case, this is going
    to end up costing many places more (unless they hew to the ever-
    shrinking concept of EPS which -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is an
    issue independent of consolidation), how is this law going to create
    either a sustainable or protective environment?  (Keep in mind, the
    "shrinking enrollment" problem is, according to the DoE's charts
    I've seen, going to turn around in 2010, which is only 2-3 years
    from now.)

4. For a legislator to not support repeal simply because it is hopeless
    (without regard to merit) seems to me to be probably the most precise
    example of a self-fulfilling prophecy I've encountered.  What form
    of leadership does this represent, or is it rather a part of the
    tit-for-tat political capital of exchanging votes?

I hope some of these considerations concern others, so that getting an 
answer on them from anyone who has insights on them will provide some 
general benefit.  Thanks for any help.

Dick

Paul Murphy wrote:
> I know that Ted has wrestled with the role that education will play in 
> addressing the unsustainable condition of the State’s finances and I 
> think it is safe to say that he feels there is a role for education to 
> play. He may even feel that consolidation in many areas is wise (by the 
> way I wouldn’t argue with that position). There are a number of reasons 
> that very few legislators don’t support repeal (I do). As one who has 
> spent considerable time at the legislature over the last year working 
> both against the consolidation law and to make changes to the law that 
> would make it more palatable, my perception is that most feel: 1.) that 
> something must be done and soon (I’m not arguing in favor of that 
> perception, just that it permeates the legislature, even among those who 
> do not love this law); and 2.) that there is no hope whatsoever of 
> repeal. (I would argue in favor of this position). The repeal effort is 
> and has been a noble endeavor but for any who have spent any time 
> talking to legislators about this, it is abundantly clear that repeal 
> will not come from them. It is a futile battle.