This is the M.D.I. Consolidation Study Group's response to the “Critical Issues” memorandum recently prepared by (or for) the Rural Caucus of the Maine legislature.  In particular, our comments address the so-called “Blended Plan” drafted by Rep. David Farrington.  The Farrington plan attempts to blend aspects of the Appropriations Committee bill on school consolidation with the consolidation proposal prepared by the Education Committee.

          We preface our response with two observations.  First, we’ve been advised that some members of the caucus are concerned that they not appear “obstructionist” on the issue of school consolidation, even though consolidation would affect their constituents disproportionately.  In our view, unless all issues of concern are resolved to their satisfaction, members of the caucus should not hesitate to oppose any bill that adversely affects their constituents.  To do so is not obstructionist.  Compromise where you can, but oppose where you must.

          Second, regarding the Farrington plan, it goes without saying that even if all the concerns and reservations expressed below could be resolved, any ensuing negotiations with consolidation proponents are likely to “pull away” from the Farrington plan.  Accordingly, it makes no sense to us to embrace the Farrington plan unreservedly.  To do so only establishes---prematurely---one boundary of the debate.

M.D.I. Consolidation Study Group

                                                          May, 12, 2007

CRITICAL ISSUES

Critical issues that must be addressed in order for the Rural Caucus to support the school consolidation.

1. Timeline:  Final consolidation by July 1, 2009.  (Early votes can be taken if a “district” is ready, with earliest date being November 2007.)

Response: We prefer no timeline and no bill.  Our position is that the state has no business forcing consolidation.  Period.  That being said, the Farrington plan does establish July 1, 2009, as the final consolidation deadline, as you request.

2. Minimum District Size:  1,200 students would be ideal, but regional differentiation is acceptable.

Response: While we on MDI could live with a 1,200-student minimum (because we currently exceed that number in Union 98), our position is that the number of students in any consolidated school district should be determined by the communities involved.  No one else is in a better position to know what will work for those towns.  In some communities, the right size will be fewer than 1,200 students.  Such communities should not have to rely on obtaining a waiver from the commissioner to stay in business.

3. Local Vote:  A local vote must be taken to approve the new district. This might include vote to authorize existing school boards to begin the planning process and a second vote to approve the new district.

Response: Under the Farrington plan, the regional planning process begins at the county level without any need for local approval.  A town that votes not to approve a proposed consolidation plan---that decides, in effect, to go it alone---will thereafter lose 50% of Essential Programs and Services funding for “system administration” as a penalty (and, of course, as an incentive to think twice).  For some towns this will be a small price to pay; for others it won’t.  We assume that as time goes on additional “incentives” will be applied to steer the non-cooperating towns toward a consolidated district.  Whether these incentives will be carrots or sticks is not clear, but true independence from Augusta is certain to be discouraged.

4. Criteria:  Criteria for acceptable consolidation must be delineated and not left to the discretion of the DOE or the State Board of education.

Response:  The Farrington plan specifies a 2,500-student minimum in York and Cumberland counties and 1,200 students elsewhere.  It further states that a consolidation plan may not “displace” teachers or students or close any school without a 2/3 vote of the governing board of the new school district.  In addition, it lists a number of items to be addressed in any plan, but fails to state what responses to those items will be deemed acceptable.  Standards for the makeup and governance of the new school boards will be developed by the county-wide planning body that develops the consolidation plan.  Those standards must conform to existing requirements governing SAD’s (chapter 103) and CSD’s (chapter 105).  Oddly, there is no corresponding reference to chapter 107: School Unions.  If, as this draft seems to imply, voting is by population, smaller towns within a newly consolidated district may be outnumbered and out-voted on issues of importance to them.  The Farrington plan doesn’t clearly indicate whether a consolidation plan not ultimately approved by the commissioner may go forward.  The commissioner does not appear to have a final veto; instead, she is directed to submit a report to the legislature’s Education Committee, advising the committee that the regional planning committee or the affected municipalities have not met the statute’s reorganization goals.  What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

5. DOE I:  DOE and the commission should act as advisors and facilitators for consolidation.  They will not have final approval.  Disputes will be settled through proposed legislation submitted by the district in question.

Response: See above.  Perhaps this would require a Private and Special Act for the district in question.

6. DOE II:  DOE should stop their efforts to lead districts to believe a decision has already been made (the Appropriations subcommittee report).

Response: We agree.

7. Specific Savings: Concrete and constructive means for reducing costs must be recommended to the new districts.  Arbitrary percentages based on cuts are not acceptable.

Response: We agree, based on the importance of the word "recommended".  See below for our discussion on arbitrary cuts.

8. SADs, Unions, etc.:  All school administrative units will be allowed to exist within the consolidation structure.

Response: The Farrington plan purports to preserve unions as an approved method of organization, but in our reading unions all but disappear.  The new consolidated school district is given authority to “request” (a euphemism) any existing school buildings, property, and other assets it may require for its own operational purposes.  Once title to those school buildings is transferred to the new district, it’s not clear what would remain for local governance---and local governance is the core precept of a school union.  Although it is silent on some of these issues, the Farrington plan would apparently place responsibility for teacher hiring and school policy in the hands of the new governing board.  Unless we misread it, school unions are thus hollowed out and local school boards are effectively stripped of responsibility.  If there is a path to true preservation of school unions in the Farrington plan, it isn’t immediately obvious.

9. School Choice:  Where applicable, school choice will be recognized and maintained in the new district. This includes independent and private schools.

Response:  We don’t see how this works in the Farrington plan, except with regard to schools granted an exception by the commissioner due to geographic isolation.  All other new consolidated school districts must include “at least one publicly supported secondary school.”  It strains credulity to imagine that a town already taxed to support one high school would still elect to tuition its students to another high school.  “School choice” would effectively disappear for those towns.

10. Penalties:  Significant penalties will be established for those school districts, unions, etc., that do not participate to include construction and special education funds.

Response: We’re not sure what “participate” means in this context, but we fail to understand why members of the Rural Caucus would advocate imposing “significant penalties” on towns they represent.  If we understand your position, this is forced consolidation by the back door---i.e., “Consolidate or be allowed to wither away.”

11. Incentives: Significant incentives will be established for new districts that are established by consolidation.

Response:  In our view, “incentives” merely promote consolidation for the heck of it.  If, as claimed, consolidation is certain to produce real savings, no further incentive should be required.  Like virtue, consolidation should be its own reward.

12. Geography:  Geography needs to be factored into consideration in establishing a district.

Response:  We agree.

13. Population density: Population density needs to be considered in establishing a district.

Response:  The Farrington plan would grant exceptions to geographic regions of the state where the population density is less than 30 inhabitants per square mile.  We don’t know where this figure comes from or which areas of the state it would necessarily exempt.  Of course, defining the boundaries of any such “regions” would be key.  Presumably the commissioner could define the boundaries in a way that suits her purposes.

14. School Closing:  A super majority vote will be required before a school can be closed.

Response: Obvious question: a super majority of votes in the affected community or a super majority of votes in the entire new consolidated district?  Under the Farrington plan, it would be a super majority of the votes in the new consolidated district.  Thus, residents of the town where the vulnerable school is located could be out-voted if the remaining towns believed the school should close.  Consider, too, that if a super majority could not be obtained, the governing school board could simply “starve” the targeted school through lower appropriations until closure was the only option.  Is this likely?  Perhaps not.  But we see nothing to preclude it.

15. Mandates: Mandates need to be revaluated and eliminated where applicable.

Response: The Farrington plan includes a “Sec. A-7” that requires the Department of Education to conduct a study of unfunded mandates and report its recommendations to the legislature no later than Dec. 15, 2008.

16. Budget Transparency: The budget should provide a clear and simple explanation of how and where money will be spent.

Response: Section 2401 of the Farrington plan addresses budget transparency.  Under the proposed language, the school administrative unit may include in its annual budget request “related information” it deems “appropriate” for the voters.  In our view, this should include a discussion of the specific budget and personnel cuts that would be required if voters fail to authorize spending over EPS.

17. High Schools: it is not necessary for a “new” district to have a high school.

Response: As noted above, the Farrington plan disagrees.

18. EPS/Labor Market:  Provide a guarantee that these issues will be addressed in a meaningful way next year.

Response:  In our reading, the Farrington plan contains no such guarantee.  Indeed, it leads in the opposite direction.  Section 1452(B) states: “The commissioner shall adjust the total cost of the components of Essential Programs and Services for transportation, facilities and maintenance, and other non-instructional functions in fiscal year 2008-09 to achieve a 5% reduction from the Essential Programs and Services allocations for those purposes in fiscal year 2007-08 as adjusted for inflation.”  In addition, the commissioner is directed to “adjust” the EPS allocation for system administration (read: superintendents) to a legislatively approved rate---presumably a reduced rate.  To take only the most obvious example of where this is leading, look at transportation.  The single biggest factor in student transportation costs is the price of energy, which is not going down by 5% (or any other amount).  Consolidation won’t change the fact that students live where they live and schools are located where they’re currently located.  Wishing it were otherwise doesn’t help.  Mandating a 5% reduction in transportation expenditures will likely mean reducing bus routes, reducing extra-curricular and co-curricular transportation (think away games), and shifting at least part of the transportation cost to parents.  Similarly, a large component of “facilities and maintenance” is the cost of fuel oil and electricity.  Again, these costs don’t appear to be moving downward.  How the Farrington plan squares its call for a 5% reduction in these expenditures with price movements in the real world is hard to see.

19. Additional comment: We take this opportunity to re-emphasize a matter of central importance to MDI schools: that we be allowed to determine how our school system is structured, governed, and paid for, according to our best judgment.  To the extent that the Farrington plan transfers decision-making authority in these areas from local school boards to new school districts (or, worse, to the DOE), the plan is not acceptable to us.  Although the Farrington plan purports to preserve existing school unions, it appears to strip them of most authority while expropriating town property.  We welcome a different interpretation, but if our reading is correct we cannot support this plan.