Does anyone know where things stand with Trenton? I work part-time at the Trenton Elementary School, but have heard very little about dialog between Union 98 and Trenton to date. Does anyone have a sense about how the community feels about joining Union 98? And how does the Union 98 community feel about Trenton coming "on board"?<br><br><b><i>Paul Murphy <paul@exploreacadia.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> The high school budget is approved district wide now. Why would you want<br>that changed?<br><br><br>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: "Margaret T. Jeffery, Esq." <mjeffery1@gwi.net><br>To: <atlee@umd.edu>; "Local Maine Schools List"<br><local-maine-schools@mainetalk.org><br>Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:47 AM<br>Subject: Re: [Local-Maine-Schools] A summary of what happened yesterday in<br>detail<br><br><br>> Thank you for the synopsis.
Very helpful. What do you mean when you say<br>> that it depends on what happens in conference with the two houses? This is<br>> a step that I am unaware of.<br>><br>> Do you know of a mechanism for ensuring that h.s. budget can be voted on<br>> locally?<br>><br>> The last provision that you mention, that the Commissioner has control<br>over<br>> the size of the units has me worried. Is there any time limitation on the<br>> Commissioner's discretion in this, i.e. could Commissioner approve a<br>> district of 1700 this year, then in 3 years (when the savings promised<br>> doesn't materialize) decide that the district has to consist of more<br>> schools in order to reach the savings necessary?<br>><br>> Margaret<br>><br>> At 11:06 AM 6/6/2007 -0400, Dick Atlee wrote:<br>> >We certainly would have been very much better off if the alleged<br>> >"problem" had been addressed in a more functional way. But the<br>>
>situation is not nearly as bad as it would have been without the efforts<br>> >of many people. Not the least of these are our own (MDI's) Hannah<br>> >Pingree and Ted Koffman in the house. But everything that happened<br>> >yesterday played out in the context of the showstoppers -- the Rural<br>> >Caucus was huge in this, in proposing changes and being the legislative<br>> >equivalent the Green Monster in Fenway, and Dennis Damon, who put<br>> >himself on the line in a key role on the Senate side.<br>> ><br>> >The high points of what happened yesterday (culminating in the final<br>> >"Amendment T") is as follows, described in detail below with section<br>> >references for those afficiandos who want to dig deeper. All of this,<br>> >of course, depends on what happens in the Senate and then in conference<br>> >with the two houses.<br>> ><br>> > 1. Local financial control of
elementary schools by municipalities<br>> > 2. Reduced punishment for non-compliance<br>> > 3. Timeline extended (sort of)<br>> > 4. Removal of specific budget reductions required in initial plan<br>> > 5. Softening of the 80-district maximum<br>> ><br>> >1. LOCAL FINANCIAL CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS<br>> ><br>> >This was nailed into place by alterations to two provisions:<br>> ><br>> >Section XXXX-13 section1481: "Notwithstanding any provisions of law to<br>> >the contrary, a municipality within a regional school unit may raise<br>> >money and direct the spending of the funds, to a school serving children<br>> >from kindergarten to no higher than grade 9."<br>> ><br>> >Section XXXX-13 section 1478: "A regional unit board may create local<br>> >school committees and specify their powers and duties." (The key change<br>> >here was to remove a final phrase:
"not in conflict with this Title,"<br>> >which left open the possibility of attacks on the idea of local control<br>> >through some unexpected loophole.)<br>> ><br>> >These guarantee the right of a municipality to create a budget,<br>> >appropriate the money, and raise it from the town, eliminating the loss<br>> >of control that would have resulted from requiring all this to be done<br>> >on a district-wide basis. This applies to K-8 schools only; the<br>> >required high school is handled district wide.<br>> ><br>> >The approval of this budget requires a referendum, the downside of which<br>> >is that, unlike a town meeting or council hearing, there is no<br>> >opportunity to explain why the budget is what it is, allowing people<br>> >with no knowledge of education to vote on it (and we've seen what that<br>> >can do in the legislature). However, the original heavily-skewed<br>>
>wording required for the ballot in such a referendum in the case where<br>> >more money was budgeted than the insufficient level defined by the state<br>> >has been removed, so voters are no longer told that said that if they<br>> >vote YES their taxes will go up (not necessarily) while not explaining<br>> >WHY those funds may be essential. (This is the now famous "apple pie or<br>> >a rock" choice.)<br>> ><br>> >REMAINING CONSIDERATIONS ON LOCAL CONTROL<br>> ><br>> >(a) The Referendum: One question is whether the referendum itself can<br>> >be held locally. Commissioner Gendron assured us that yes, that is the<br>> >case for K-8 in this scenario, that a separate vote would be held for<br>> >the high school and central office (presumably this could be on the same<br>> >ballot). But for anyone whose trust in that source has been frayed, for<br>> >whom the motto "In Legislative
Language We Trust" is king, the lack of<br>> >clarity on this point in The Language could be a point of concern.<br>> ><br>> >(b) School Property and Debt: The bizarre language requiring the<br>> >district to take over school property from municipalities, leaving them<br>> >with whatever portion of their debt was not state subsidized, has not<br>> >been removed. This leaves open the possibility that towns will be<br>> >raising money for schools that they don't own and on which they owe a<br>> >lot of money.<br>> ><br>> >(c) District decides: The existence of local control hinges on the<br>> >granting of those powers by the District Board. The composition of this<br>> >board is thus absolutely vital to the future of local control. For<br>> >districts that were previously popular Unions, this wouldn't be a<br>problem.<br>> ><br>> >(d) Finer points of governance: It is true that
aspects of K-8<br>> >governance not controlled by a budget will be under the control of the<br>> >district. Curriculum control is a good example, but given that a high<br>> >school is now required in a district, the idea that all students should<br>> >come to the high-school on an equal footing does make educational sense.<br>> ><br>> >2. REDUCED PUNISHMENT FOR NONCOMPLIANCE (Section XXXX-32)<br>> ><br>> >(a) Loss of minimum state contribution -- now you only lose half.<br>> >(b) Loss of state contribution for system administration -- now you only<br>> >lose half<br>> >(c) Small schools lose their isolated-school-adjustment -- now they don't<br>> >(d) The punitive 5% mil-rate increase has been dropped<br>> ><br>> >3. TIME LINE EXTENSION -- WELL, SORT OF (Section XXXX-35, sub 7-8)<br>> ><br>> >In the initial language, plans had to be submitted before December 15 of<br>>
>this year, and voted on by January 15, 2008 (with another vote November<br>> >2008 if the first failed). The deadline has been moved back in the<br>> >sense that plans can be submitted after December 15 but have to be voted<br>> >on by June 10, 2008. This amounts to less than a year for planning a<br>> >massive change in how things are done.<br>> ><br>> >4. REDUCTIONS REQUIRED IN INITIAL PLAN REMOVED (Section XXXX-35, sub 6:F)<br>> ><br>> >The original language required the reorganization plan to state 5% cuts<br>> >in transportation, special education, and facilities and maintenance and<br>> >a cut in system administration to 50% of the state's EPS (recommended)<br>> >amount (very severe for anyone already spending more than EPS. Friday<br>> >hat 50% was increased to 100%; then yesterday both restrictions were<br>> >removed, with a more reasonable:<br>> ><br>> >XXXX-35:6:F.
"The plan must address how the school administrative unit<br>> >will reorganize administrative functions, duties and noninstructional<br>> >personnel so that the projected expenditures of the reorganized school<br>> >unit in fiscal year 2008-09 for system administration, transportation,<br>> >special education and facilities and maintenance will not have an<br>> >adverse impact on the instructional program."<br>> ><br>> >And the section invoking this (Section XXXX-35 sub 4:B) now says: "Each<br>> >SAU shall exercise due diligence and act in good faith in developing a<br>> >plan that meets the requirements of the Part and furthers the intent of<br>> >the Legislature to achieve sustainable, long-term administrative<br>> >efficiencies."<br>> ><br>> >5. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DISTRICTS SOFTENED (Section XXXX-35 sub 7:D)<br>> ><br>> >Although the language still mentions 80 districts, one
section appears<br>> >to soften this: "The Commissioner of Education may not find that a plan<br>> >for reorganization does not meet the requirements of the Part solely on<br>> >the ground that a finding that it meets the requirements would cause the<br>> >number of regional school units in the State to exceed 80."<br>> ><br>> >_______________________________________________<br>> >Local-Maine-Schools mailing list<br>> >To send a message to the list, write to:<br>> > Local-Maine-Schools@mainetalk.org<br>> >To unsubscribe or change subscription settings:<br>> > http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools_mainetalk.org<br>> ><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Local-Maine-Schools mailing list<br>> To send a message to the list, write to:<br>> Local-Maine-Schools@mainetalk.org<br>> To unsubscribe or change subscription
settings:<br>> http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools_mainetalk.org<br>><br>><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Local-Maine-Schools mailing list<br>To send a message to the list, write to:<br> Local-Maine-Schools@mainetalk.org<br>To unsubscribe or change subscription settings:<br> http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools_mainetalk.org<br> <br></local-maine-schools@mainetalk.org></atlee@umd.edu></mjeffery1@gwi.net></blockquote><br><p>
<hr size=1>The fish are biting.<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50"> Get more visitors</a> on your site using <a href="
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50">Yahoo! Search Marketing.</a>