REORGANIZATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
Mount Desert Island High School Library
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
DRAFT Minutes
Attendance: Facilitator, Bill Ferm; Chair, Gail Marshall; Vice-Chair, Brian Hubbell;
Bar Harbor: Paul Murphy, Bob Garland; Mt. Desert: Laurel Robbins, Jeff Smith;
Southwest Harbor: Amy Young, Anne Napier, Skip Strong; Tremont: Amy Murphy, Phil Worden; Lamoine: Kathleen Rybarz; Trenton: Fred Ehrlenbach, Mike Swanson
Others in attendance: Kelley Sanborn, Rick Barter, Rob Liebow, Nancy Thurlow, George Peckham, and Patrick Smallidge
Commencement of Meeting and Review of Agenda
Gail Marshall called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and reviewed the topics on this meeting’s agenda.
Review and Approval of Minutes from August 22nd
Jeff Smith commented that the minutes seem too brief and would prefer more detail. Brian Hubbell asked if the podcasts were helpful. Mr. Smith did not feel that they were. He would prefer to see points of discussion in the minutes so a more accurate record of people’s opinions can be addressed.
MOVED by Laurel Robbins, seconded by Jeff Smith, and unanimously voted to approve the minutes of August 22, 2007 as presented.
Role of Facilitator
Gail Marshall reviewed Bill Ferm’s training in Augusta. The state envisions facilitators functioning as a state employee. Mr. Ferm is required to file reports twice a month with the state regarding the activities of the RPC. Facilitators are also encouraged to attend meetings in Augusta twice a month. The committee needs to decide if it’s definition of facilitator is the same as the state’s. Then the committee can decide if Mr. Ferm should become a fully certified facilitator through the state or not.
Mr. Ferm shared his experiences in Augusta and his understanding of what the role of a facilitator is according to the state. He asked that the RPC decide if they need a facilitator or not. He wants the committee to be sure the definition of facilitator that it is using is the same as that of the state.
Gail Marshall reminded the committee that a facilitator is not required. She reminded the committee that Mr. Ferm was asked to facilitate because board members felt he would keep the best interests of our communities and our schools in mind.
Most members felt that having a facilitator, in particular Bill Ferm, would be helpful, especially if public meetings are held regarding the RPC process. It would also help to have “eyes and ears” in Augusta.
Mr. Ferm can choose to solely represent this committee and does not have to facilitate for other groups.
Mr. Worden stated that the facilitator’s role is to support the communities, deal with sensitive issues, and handle disagreements so the committee can reach consensus. This will enable the committee to be united when providing information to communities.
Mr. Smith mentioned that Mr. Ferm would have access to resources at the state. He would be a neutral person to run general meetings and allow unprejudiced conversations. The committee needs someone to keep us on task who is not a stakeholder and can remain neutral. He would prefer to have Mr. Ferm here to move discussions along and keep meetings flowing.
Mr. Ferm felt that the information he would receive from the state could be a good resource for this committee. There is a list serve that will be utilized by facilitators to provide a forum for issues and concerns regarding the reorganization process.
Gail Marshall agreed that it would be useful to have Mr. Ferm as a facilitator, but did not think he should go through the state training and certification. This would require too much of his time without proper compensation.
Paul Murphy asked that if Mr. Ferm felt conflicted at any point that he let the committee know.
MOVED by Paul Murphy, seconded by Bob Garland, and unanimously voted to keep the role of facilitator in place as it is and authorize Mr. Ferm to become fully certified through the state and become a state employee.
Gail Marshall’s role as chair will still be to run the meetings and Mr. Ferm as facilitator will address conflicts and help facilitate public meetings.
Governance (Budget Process and School System)
Gail Marshall stated that the purpose of this discussion is to broaden the focus on model #4. This is what governance might look like if we use the model which has K-8 schools being locally run and a centralized system for high school that either brings in other towns as similar players or brings in other towns through tuition. The budget process and selection of representatives will vary depending on these and other details.
Paul Murphy asked if Mr. Liebow would review the spreadsheets before discussing governance.
Mr. Liebow reviewed Version 1 which is the same spreadsheet that was presented at the last meeting, but with a new piece added. It includes all present “discussers” as stated in the letters of intent filed with the state. The model has each town funding K-8 on their own, high school funding where 4 of the towns use the private and special act formula for their share, and other towns paying enrollment share as set up in the state model. The district office is shared by all. Property value was added to the spreadsheet on a $150,000 house and shows how much costs run per town. This includes costs for K-8, high school and the district office. Mr. Liebow reviewed the differences in costs per town based on this scenario. He asked the committee to keep in mind that this is based on current budgets with no adjustments to salaries or other changes in costs. Mr. Liebow pointed out that Lamoine contributes over 90% of their tax bill to education.
Version 2 had the same kind of activity but put every town in the formula which would change each town’s numbers.
Gail Marshall asked that the committee not hold a full discussion on these formulas but review them and formulate questions.
Patrick Smallidge asked if other towns use formulas like this.
Mr. Liebow said they do not. Most are based on pure property values. The Brushwein formula used in these versions was an effort to make figures fairer for each town.
Mr. Smallidge asked if this was a legitimate formula for other entities?
Mr. Liebow said it wouldn’t give a clear picture if used. Brushwein came up with value equivalents, created this formula and then plugged in mil rates. This was the closest way to show equivalent property holding for each taxpayer.
Mr. Smallidge felt his point was missed. This formula is not utilized anywhere. Cost per student is used everywhere. Equitable education has a cost.
Gail Marshall reminded that committee that many places use purely property valuation, but some towns use property valuation and enrollment. The model in the new law is pure enrollment. This is not an issue that will be resolved tonight.
Mr. Liebow stated that this was a prime example of why the committee needs a facilitator.
Mr. Liebow reviewed the budget process. All budgets will have to be presented in a similar, transparent format by category. They must show a comparison by category to similar high performing schools in the state. After Jan. 1 every budget has to go to a referendum vote within 10 days of the legislative body’s vote and if it doesn’t pass it must go back to step one until the budget does pass. The law states there would be one budget for the RSU that would be approved at an annual district budget meeting, much like the annual budget meeting for the high school, where all the residents of the RSU vote on that budget. Then there would be a referendum by all members of those towns in the RSU and if that doesn’t pass then go back to beginning. The law does allow, as shown in model 4, to build a budget that each town can raise a K-8 on their own back, share the high school piece using the funding formula, and the only portion towns would share is the central office. If so, this make assumptions that to raise K-8 each town would have a town meeting and have articles like the current practice, then within 10 days, have a referendum vote on that piece that would then get folded into one big RSU budget, but it would all be raised in separate pieces. Each town could do this and then have a high school part, then the central office piece, and then have a referendum. There could be local school committees with powers it chooses to include. This could create the budget. All pieces would be applied to individual towns and schools. One payroll, one set of books, one salary scale, but individual funds would be up to local towns to decide upon. There are no efficiencies in the central office if this is used and it might actually be asking more of the central office staff. The state does not want to see these separate budgets, just the RSU budget as a whole.
Patrick Smallidge asked what the mechanism for changing the governance structure would be.
Brian Hubbell responded that the RPC will set up a model. The legislative adoption will be town by town. After that, to alter the model in any way will require a town vote. The RSU won’t have the authority to alter that.
Gail Marshall asked that the discussion move on to the school system itself and how we would elect representatives.
Mr. Liebow understands that the RSU board has to be an elected board of directors with at least one member from each municipality and it has to follow a process that creates something that agrees with one person one vote. There could be five members from each town and the one person one vote principal would be by weighted vote. Each of the five members would have a number of votes based on the census of the town they represent. Each town can also have a local school committee that has whatever powers the RSU gives them e.g. policies, hiring, firing.
Paul Murphy mentioned that contracting with local teachers could survive but would have to come to the district level.
The bargaining section in the law is quite lengthy, but it says there needs to be one bargaining unit and one salary scale for the entire RSU. Teachers will be paid the same in the RSU format. There could no longer be separate bargaining units in each school. One bargaining unit will cover every teacher in the RSU. This could be a problem for Trenton and Lamoine due to salaries and health insurance.
Brian Hubbell mentioned that we don’t need to figure out what the law says, we need to figure out how we can make it work for us.
Patrick Smallidge asked if there was a reason we couldn’t meet Lamoine’s needs at this time.
Mr. Liebow pointed out that a large number of current employees would have to remain at the same step for a few years and this would not be a good bargaining position for us.
Fred Ehrlenbach asked if the hiring of K-8 teachers would remain with each town.
Mr. Liebow said that it would, but it would be at the RSU salary scale.
Mr. Ehrlenbach had asked the state if they would be taking over negotiations as far as teacher salaries are concerned, but did not receive an answer.
Mr. Liebow said this may happen eventually, but they are not proposing it at this point. There may be a regional sort of effect due to affordability or market conditions which is based on looking at the cost of living in certain areas.
Mr. Ehrlenbach mentioned that one of the intents of this law is to streamline or reduce the costs of transportation. Is the state going to eliminate municipal boundaries and go by travel distance from the school?
Mt. Liebow said that in year number one the wording says the plan will not displace any teachers or students. The idea of an RSU is that there is no more “town” so he does not know what will happen after year one.
Gail Marshall stated that the transportation issues will certainly need to be addressed at some point.
Paul Murphy mentioned that the power flow in the RSU using model 4 would be from the RSU to the local towns which is the opposite of the way it is now. Most likely the towns will have 3 – 5 members on the RSU board.
Five members would be on the RSU board and have it set up so the same five members are on the local board.
Feedback from Towns
Clearly there are four towns here that have filed a letter of intent and don’t have anywhere else to go.
We are trying to get a feel from other towns where they are and where they are going. Are they leaning in one direction or another? We are looking for some feedback from Trenton, Lamoine, and the outer islands.
Jeff Smith said the town of Mt. Desert is pursuing another avenue. They are joining with Cape Elizabeth and East Machias to try to get a citizen’s petition to repeal the current legislation. The Town of Mt. Desert may also have a local referendum to review the funding formula.
Barbara Meyers asked if more towns should join with Mt. Desert.
Mr. Smith said that putting pressure on the legislature is very useful. The more towns that join, the more pressure there will be on the legislature and the Department of Education.
Patrick Smallidge stated that the reorganization is a good chance to review the high school funding formula, but this is an obvious attack on local control. The town will fight to retain democracy at our local level.
Fred Ehrlenbach stated that he is participating as a Trenton town representative and has no idea what will happen January 15. Trenton will take same stand with Union 92 and Union 96. At some point the state is going to approve one of the letters of intent that Trenton submitted and they will have to follow that.
Gail Marshall asked if Trenton has thought about what they will do if the commissioner approves a plan that they don’t want?
Mr. Ehrlenbach doesn’t think Union 92 will stand alone. Flanders Bay and Ellsworth could stay together. That would be an ideal opportunity to establish two different high schools with two different curriculums. They are proposing to put the K-8 funding through the RSU. These are two different concepts and they are exploring both right to the end. Donut hole is not an option, although there is talk of it. No one likes the choice we have been given.
Lamoine is in same place as Trenton. No formula costs them less. They will lose big subsidy no matter what they do. They are just going to have to choose the philosophy they like best.
Ted Spurling stated that this is a loss of control for coastal islands. All off shore islands banding together is an absurd idea.
Gail Marshall asked if the islands could you contract with the RSU.
Barbara Meyers said that if mil rate problem is not solved then the islands may have to contract with the RSU instead of becoming a member, or claim exemption.
Mr. Ehrlenbach said that if Trenton did decide to go with Union 96, Trenton would retain choice as far as high school is concerned. Their town population wants to go both places. Ellsworth couldn’t take all Trenton students as they are already at 95% capacity.
Mr. Liebow pointed out that transportation is a big part of it. In the past we have had students who wanted to come to MDIHS but could not due to transportation issues.
Paul Murphy stated that tuition costs would also need to be worked out.
Update on Legal Counsel
Rob called Norm Higgins at the state and said that there are two pots - $2,500 available for boat tickets, recording, etc. and legal costs in another pot. There is a three-tiered plan for determining how money is disbursed. Regular RSU format could receive 4 -5 thousand. A unique RSU would be top tier and could apply for and receive more funds. If an RSU needs more money they would need to submit for it. Mr. Liebow did not hear the $10,000 figure as mentioned before, but did hear the 4-5 for a regular RSU.
Paul Murphy said the $10,000 was for current SAU’s which for Union 98 would have been $40,000, but that was not a hard figure. Now the state has changed each “SAU” to each “RPC”.
Gail Marshall suggested the committee move ahead and try to set the next meeting date and agenda topics. A small group could meet with Dick Spencer in Portland, but we need to formulate questions to take to him. There is also a need to plan for public meetings. Tentatively schedule one toward the end of the month. Perhaps we could submit expenses for outer islands showing how quickly we will run through the $2,500.
Paul Murphy recommended that the committee work on public relations.
Gail Marshall suggested that the committee establish contact with the local papers and sit down with editors or local reporters and have regular columns that discuss the big questions people have.
Next Meeting Date
Wednesday, September 19 at 7:00 p.m. in the MDIHS Library
Future Agenda Items
Exploration of overall structuring
Roundtable discussion regarding the pieces of K-8 pros and cons
Diagrams showing delegation of power structure based on model 4
Adjournment
MOVED by Laurel Robbins, seconded by Brian Hubbell, and unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Selena Dunbar, Recording Secretary