Reorganization Planning Committee Meeting

28 November 2007

DRAFT Minutes

Present:  Facilitator Bill Ferm, Chair Gail Marshall, Vice-Chair Brian Hubbell

Bar Harbor:  Paul Murphy, Bob Garland;  Mount Desert:  Laurel Robbins, Jeff Smith;  Southwest Harbor:  Amy Young, Skip Strong, Kristin Hutchins;  Tremont:  Phil Worden, Scott Grierson; Cranberry Isles:  Ted Spurling;  Swan’s Island:  Tammy Tripler

Others in attendance:  Rob Liebow, Nancy Thurlow, Patrick Barter, Selena Dunbar, Bill Trotter, Mr. and Mrs. George Peckham, Jim Bright, Mia Brown, Brian Reilly, Patrick Smallidge,

Tom Burton, Margaret Jeffery, Gary Friedmann, Elsie Fleming, Representative Ted Koffman

Commencement of Meeting

Gail Marshall called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

Review of Draft Minutes from 7, 14, and 15 November 2007

MOVED by Paul Murphy, seconded by Bob Garland, and unanimously voted to approve the minutes of 7, 14, and 15 November 2007 as presented. 

Presentation and Discussion of Proposed Plan

Gail Marshall reviewed the documents that relate to the proposed plan.

Brian Hubbell mentioned that there is one change to the cover letter – “we expect you’ll find no surprises in the details” as opposed to “so we expect no surprises in response to the details.” 

Concerns were raised regarding the tone of the letter and wording.  A suggestion was made to shorten the letter to one page and mention that agreements between our board members and the commissioner were reached and we hope that she won’t forget those. 

Jeff Smith suggested that the letter include paragraphs 1, 3, and 5, then sign it.   

Gail Marshall raised the concern about getting legislators in the loop.  We should contact Hannah Pingree and let her know we’ve submitted the plan.

Ted Spurling wanted to mention in the cover letter that we want to take the best of what we already have while complying with the law. 

Bill Ferm suggested that Brian Hubbell rewrite the cover letter and email it to everyone with the suggestions that have been mentioned.

Bill Ferm – The next document is the submittal sheet which is a required document. 

There were no questions or concerns regarding this document.

Bill Ferm – The next document is the Reorganization Plan Cover Sheet.  Two barriers were listed in this document that Brian Hubbell will explain. 

Brian Hubbell – The 2 mil issue is one barrier that keeps Cranberry out right from the top and this is completely eliminated in the legislation that the department submitted today.  Validation of referendum requirements is the second barrier.  The way to simplify the number of budget validating referenda that would be required under our model where each budget would be approved at respective town meetings and then the law as it is currently written requires a referendum within 10 days of that.  If that was relaxed we could have the budgets approved as they conventionally are at town meeting and followed by a single day when everyone gets to vote on high school and local budgets.  This would certainly simplify things.

Skip Strong asked about #2 in the Plan which is the size, composition and apportionment of the governing body.  Who is going to establish the number of people on the local boards and where is this mentioned?

Brian Hubbell responded that it is the first item in the matrix.  We didn’t establish that, we left that up to the town.

Patrick Smallidge mentioned that one town will be representing all the votes.  He said that Paul Murphy had mentioned at a previous meeting that this wouldn’t be good for anyone.  Mr. Smallidge would rather see the votes distributed by population or contribution.

Gail Marshall pointed out that we do not get to choose this.  There is some suggestion that the way we currently do it at MDIHS might not follow the law.  Union 98 is currently done this way.  Under the new governance, we tried to keep Bar Harbor with as few members as possible within the law.  We have functioned this way for a long time without difficulty.

Brian Hubbell – We constrained Bar Harbor as much as possible.  Towns can still send all respresentatives for discussions as we do now.

Paul Murphy doesn’t think any one town should have overwhelming force, but it is done by population and one person one vote.  He does not see a way around it.

Patrick Smallidge – Bar Harbor in tandem with any other town could dominate the budget. 

Bill Ferm – We are trying to fit within the confines of the law.  We need to step back and look at the effect of this law.

Tammy Tripler – When we first started this process she felt the same.  We are one of the smallest at the table.  The whole thing that has come out of this process is that you can still voice your opinion.  It is your job to make sure the people in your town are unified and make your position heard so that members from here know those concerns.   It does work, it is not the best system, but it’s what we have.  We have to empower our towns knowing that this is the system we have to work with.

Bob Garland – This can’t be much different than other small population centers consolidating with larger population centers around the state.   It’s the same situation if they have decided to go with a weighted vote.  We know this works well here.

Margaret Jefferey – Look at the effect of these votes.  Each municipality is going to have dominion over elementary votes.  MDIHS and RSU is where this will happen.  Bar Harbor will not be very different in regard to the best interests of students when it comes to other schools.

Tom Burton – This is the way it is working out.  We can’t help it.  You have to look at how it works.  We are one educational community.  At the high school and union levels you see people discussing concerns and coming to consensus.

Scott Grierson – Island communities just have one voting member.

Paul Murphy – There is no way to weight the voting in terms of valuation or contribution.  It’s one person one vote.  Discrepancy between 1 – 6 members at the RSU is the members that can vote.  Within each town running each school you can have between three and six.

Gail Marshall – 1 member is based on the population that the islands have.  The 3-6 is only talking about elementary school boards.

Tammy Tripler clarified that all members of the local board could come to the RSU board and discuss concerns but only one member can vote.

Phil Worden –  This is the only practical alternative for voting. 

George Peckham – Is one person one vote mandated by the state?

Gail Marshall – It’s not in the consolidation law, it is a constitutional requirement.

Tom Burton – This gets right to the roots of democracy.  You’re not supposed to purchase governance off how much money you have.

Paul Murphy -  Most people at this table probably signed the repeal petition.  None of us love this law, but we’re here to submit a plan that complies with it.  The RPC is impaneled to come up with a plan that complies with the law and that’s what this plan does.  Work for repeal.

Gail Marshall – I would not be suggesting a plan that I did not think was workable and good for these communities.  It’s not just trying to comply with the law.  This will work.  This has worked.  It’s a very dark view of humanity to suggest something I have never seen on this board and that is that people come to this board, and they walk in as a Bar Harbor phalanx and a Mount Desert phalanx and a Tremont phalanx and a Southwest Harbor phalanx that is not how we operate and if people come to this board and act in that way then they are not serving the best interests of the schools and the children from their communities and I guess if you want to  elect people who will behave like that, you’ll get the school board you deserve.  This kind of thing is required by the constitution and I think it will work. 

Bill Ferm – Let’s move on to #3.

Scott Grierson – Suggested change to “voting members” in matrix, not just number of directors.

#4 powers and duties –

Tammy Tripler asked for clarification regarding election of members.  The Swan’s board got confused about how members were elected.

Gail Marshall – As a result of election to RSU, you become a member of your local board.  This is just the reverse of how we do it now. 

George Peckham – Are the members elected to be on the RSU agents of the state or the voters?

Paul Murphy – They are representatives of the children.  A school board member is responsible to provide the best education for the students they represent.

Gail Marshall – She is not sure there is an answer in the law.  School board members now and in the future are governed by a law that states their powers and duties.  Not articulated in town charters, always been a function of state law.  This is a political question, not a legal question.  State law has always established what school board members are and are not.

Bill Ferm – We need to address Tammy’s concern with wording. 

Scott Grierson – Say board of directors from each respective town.

Phil Worden – In terms of the substance, non-controversial.  Maybe improvements to wording, but substance is non-controversial.

Bob Garland – Keeping the wording the way it is keeps the intent of getting the commissioner’s approval.

Tom Burton – Going from top down instead of local to RSU which is how it is now. 

Bill Ferm – Moving on to Overall School Responsibilities, Budgeting, and Referendum Procedures.  The Referendum Procedures is one of the barriers that was mentioned earlier.  There were no comments on these sections.

Local Assessments – Brian Hubbell said this is one of the changes in wording.  Added clause after central office costs.  Changed to:  “or subsequent formula as agreed by member towns.”

Brian Reilly – Will there be a discussion about the funding formula?

Gail – Yes.

Overall budget reporting and record keeping - Nancy Thurlow – Vouchers will be different because there will only be one RSU voucher.  The voucher will not be split by school.

Brian Hubbell – Whether it was appropriate for RSU board to approve expenditures for each school.  Thought it was an important responsibility to be exercised by each local board.  If we did that as RSU board, it could take up a lot of time if there were particular expenditures at local schools.

Rob Liebow – The consequence is that you have a business office that is going to have to do this all as one and disaggregate into locals 7 or 8 times a month.  To disaggregate bills would take a lot of time and effort.

Gail Marshall – We’re going to have to work on this.  Important for local boards to approve their own vouchers.  Feels this reflects what we need.  Submitting all budgets to state as one is going to be difficult.

Mia Brown – Agree, but can see accounting issues. 

Nancy Thurlow – We can give a monthly status by cost center.  If we have one bill for Verizon, we won’t be doing what we do now.  The Verizon bill will get divided by all schools, but will show on main RSU voucher as one, except that it is divided 8 different ways.

Mia Brown – Our goal would be that we want to make it as easy for towns but also for accounting.

Brian Hubbell – Voucher approval by RSU, but will need budget summaries that are keyed prior to that to local school expenses so local boards can look into it deeper.

Nancy Thurlow – We can’t do the budget reports first; must do voucher first.

Gail Marshall – For the time being, leave it as is and continue to work through issues and develop solutions as we work through these. 

Balances and Carryover – No comments.

General reserves – No comments.

Building and equipment – No comments.

Construction and Renovation Projects – George Peckham – These two areas emphasize the fact that there will be no more Trustees.  It will be difficult with more people involved.

Gail Marshall agreed with Mr. Peckham.

Scott Grierson – When will we know whether we are leasing school buildings?

Gail Marshall – December 15

Scott Grierson – Can we switch ownership?  Tremont owns the building and leases to the school.  Why couldn’t we just buy the school for $1 and lease back to RSU.

Brian Hubbell – A review from our lawyer may tell us how we can work through this, but he doesn’t think anyone is talking about shifting ownership of buildings. 

Debt Responsibility – Brian Hubbell – or subsequent formula… is new wording.

Scholarship or Special Funds – No comments.

Student Activity Funds – No comments.

Federal And State Grants – No comments.

Margaret Jeffery – Administer and oversee.  What is the difference?

Gail Marshall – The central office interfaces with federal and state grantors.  Local schools will decide how that is used. 

Rob Liebow – It might not be that simple on state and federal grants.  They are only going to recognize the RSU.  They may list special projects which would happen at local schools, but the feds aren’t going to give money to Swan’s or Bar Harbor, they will give to the RSU.  That may shift because we are a big glob and big globs don’t get money that smaller ones do.  This is an unintended consequence of consolidation.

Employment –  No comments.

Supervision and Evaluation of Staff – No comments.

Negotiated contracts – No comments.

Staff seniority and RIF – No comments.

Personnel records – No comments.

Assignment of staff to schools – No comments.

Assignment of students to schools – No comments.

Establishing school grade structures – No comments.

George Peckham – Assigning students to schools, what about tuition students?

Rob Liebow – The plan doesn’t have to address that.  Each school is going to be maintained within its municipal lines.  Kids that don’t currently have a high school still get school choice. 

George Peckham – Could the RSU refuse tuition students from another town?

Gail Marshall – We already have contracts and the new RSU has to keep those.  We can’t pick and choose towns. 

Rob Liebow – Swan’s Island, Cranberry, and Frenchboro we don’t have contracts with, but we do with Union 92 for a 5 year period of time.

Paul Murphy – Legislation guarantees that schools that now have school choice will retain that.  No other towns than towns that currently have school choice will be able to have school choice.  This could be a case where children of staff who don’t live in the municipality would be a decision local boards would oversee.

Gail Marshall – If there are any questions, just change the high school part to say “determined at the high school level.”

Phil Worden – this matrix is about local vs. RSU. 

Patrick Smallidge – With school choice, if the RSU decides to stop accepting tuition students they could do that?

Paul Murphy – We have contracts that we have to honor.  The law doesn’t make clear whether beyond those contracts we have to accept tuition students.  We want to keep our tuition students.  They are vital to our school.  He doesn’t think the law addresses this other than students maintain school choice. 

Gail Marshall – The law doesn’t require us to take tuition students after the contracts expire.

Tammy Tripler – When people from the mainland look at tuition students, transportation is a huge part of the local budget.  If you add transportation into tuition it would be really large.  If you start getting caught up in this, we’re not going to get anywhere.  We need to move ahead and little details we can work on down the road.

Scott Grierson – If the RSU has the authority regarding tuition students it should state that.

Brian Hubbell – Could say assignment for 9-12.

Establishing school grade structures – No comments.

Staffing patterns and class size - No comments.

Programming decisions - No comments.

Curriculum decisions and selection of education materials - No comments.

Policy making - No comments.

School closure - No comments.

Extra-curricular programs - No comments.

Scott Grierson – school closings – What if a town decides to opt out?  Is there an avenue for the town to handle this?  Is there a mechanism for one community to opt out?

Gail Marshall – Doesn’t think we should be grappling with that at this point.  The way we’re proposing this plan is that each town on the mainland has to accept it. 

Scott Grierson – Five years from now Tremont may say we want to go our own way.  Can that municipality opt out or do all the other towns have to agree?

Phil Worden – We need to move on.

Expulsion powers – No comments.

Transportation – No comments.

Bus purchases – No comments.

Lunch programs – No comments.

Acceptance of Gifts – No comments.

Establishment of annual school calendar - No comments.

Insurances - No comments.

Outside contracts - No comments.

Lease agreements - No comments.

Mia Brown – Transportation – High School side, transport students to and from the high school?

Ted Spurling – If special needs students are transported somewhere else, that would be left out of this.

Brian Reilly – Can transportation be addressed?  Some busses are not full and drive by kids that they could pick up.

Gail Marshall – This is a great thing for the RSU to work on.

Bill Ferm – Does this plan give the RSU the ability to determine this later?

Gail Marshall – Yes.

Rob Liebow – This is addressed in the “redistribution” box.

Distribution of state subsidy – No comments.

Redistribution of powers – No comments.

Paul Murphy – This needs to be further fleshed out.  What is an affected town?  If 2 towns decide to consolidate their schools, do other towns need to approve? 

Gail Marshall – Not sure you can expect this board with this document at this time to determine these things at this time.  Need to leave the flexibility in the plan so 10-15 years from now people will have flexibility to cover these items.  You’re never going to be able to create something that covers every fact pattern down the road.

Paul Murphy – He is fine with it to move this document ahead, but before we’re done with this it needs more fleshing out.

Scott Grierson – Redistribution is after the plan is approved.  Why say the RSU?  Couldn’t there be a citizens’ initiative? 

Gail Marshall – Yes.  If you want any stability in your system, the RSU ought to be the clearinghouse for those types of changes.

Phil Worden – This is the flexibility issue we’ve talked so much about. 

Paul Murphy – For approval by the voters in each affected town. 

Phil Worden – More protective of the status quo, requires RSU approval and each individual town voters.

Gail Marshall – Submitted to the voters of each individual town.

Scott Grierson – If the town determines through it’s own processes, they can’t do anything unless the RSU board agrees?

Gail Marshall – Remember, we are not talking about a community as part of the school system.  We are talking about powers and duties for elementary schools.  We remain independent.  Not whether you are part of the RSU or not.  If we want to have any kind of stability, the RSU should be involved in deliberations about those issues. 

Brian Reilly – Throughout this process, keep in mind Bar Harbor has the controlling interest, and if Bar Harbor wanted to take on another town, Bar Harbor could come in and say, “Tremont, we like your school and we’re going to take it over.”

Tammy Tripler – We’re talking about the RSU as an alien board.  It is not, it is made up of  local board members.  You’ve elected these people to represent you.  Decisions still have to be approved by the town.

Tom Burton – To respond to Brian, wouldn’t that affect all towns?

Bill Ferm – It is important that we move on so can get through this tonight.

Gail Marshall – Doesn’t understand the hypothetical.  This is about the relationship between local boards and the RSU.  That is not what this matrix is about.

Patrick Smallidge - Any two towns could be denied by any one town.  Preserves individuality of each town.

Scott Grierson – This is the most important piece.  How the changes take place is extremely important and has to be clear.  If not, RSU could change powers.

Phil Worden – At the Tremont meeting they discussed flexibility at length.  Thought important to maintain going to town meeting.  This could not take place unless Tremont voted to approve it, wouldn’t matter how many votes Bar Harbor has.  Needs both RSU and local town meeting to approve.

Paul Murphy agreed with Mr. Worden.  The conversation needs to happen at the RSU level because the two bodies that are affected by the change needs to be clearer  - “approval in each affected town” was not clear that one town says no, and it doesn’t happen.  Initial  conversation takes place at the RSU level.

Mia Brown – Doesn’t foresee that any change would be good for one and not another.  All schools would be affected within the plan. 

Margaret Jeffery – The construction of the sentence doesn’t work.  Propose different wording - to be enacted only after it has been submitted to the voters of the RSU and then to the voters of the town.

Ted Spurling – Change wording from “determined” to “recommended”. 

Paul Murphy – Doesn’t think it is clear that any town can vote it down.  We need to be as careful as we can. 

Kristin Hutchins – We could say “approval in each and any affected town…”

Paul Murphy – Needs to be “each and every…”

Tom Burton – Take out “RSU” voters and just have the voters for approval in each and every affected town.

Mia Brown – Is the intention of the wording to be recommended at the RSU level?  Does the RSU board that?

Gail Marshall – That’s right.  In order to have a rational situation for school governance, the RSU should be the funnel for all these changes.

Bob Garland – Once the plan is approved and the RSU is elected, the RSU will be responsible for drawing up bylaws so some of these procedures can be addressed.

Tom Burton – Should you change “recommended” to “determined” now that other wording has changed?

Amy Young – Mia Brown can go to her school board and say I think this needs to be changed.  It would then go to the RSU.  It is open to everybody. 

Paul Murphy – Suggested adding a sentence that says “failure to win approval in any affected town constitutes a veto”.  That clarifies whether any affected town can veto a change or not.

Scott Grierson – Objects to the word “determined”. 

MOVED by Paul Murphy, seconded by Scott Grierson and unanimously agreed to make two changes.  That we change “determined” to “planned at the RSU board level” and add “failure to win approval in any affected town constitutes a veto.” 

A brief discussion followed. 

Paul Murphy – If one town wants to change one of these powers, it affects every town.  But say Pemetic and Tremont wanted to combine schools, that might not affect every town.  You can imagine situations where only two towns would be affected.  It would take one of two towns (Tremont, Pemetic) to veto it and both of those towns to say yes to make it happen. 

Patrick Smallidge – Would this mean a mandate of all 4 towns as opposed to 1 town?

Paul Murphy – Covered by statute, there is a mechanism for a town succeeding.

Rob Liebow - one of the concerns that has come up.  Present law doesn’t address a way out.  Once you’re in, you’re in.  It’s not addressed specifically in this law, but it would be the same procedures as now.  Doesn’t think the intent is that once you marry there is no divorce. 

Patrick – Obviously this is a concern, with the exception of certain provisions surrounding the formula, the special act ceases to exist then you are also have the potential of towns leaving and leaving the debt behind.  Then we get back to the issue of towns not joining. 

Bill Ferm - 5,6,7, and 8 all refer to sections we covered.  9 has to do with a transition plan.

Kristin Hutchins – I would think you would include all minutes of all the minutes. 

Gail Marshall - No, just the public forum minutes are required.

George Peckham – The way this seems to be created is RSU 8 going to be owned by us or by the state?  It sounds awfully good to be owned by us.  Who owns school property?

Bill Ferm – This is covered in two other categories.

11 – 12 – 13 – 13-A – 13-B – 13-C – 13-D  - no comments of discussion.

MOVED by Paul Murphy, seconded by Phil Worden and unanimously voted that this board approve these documents for submittal, as amended this evening, by December 1^st.

Bill Ferm congratulated the committee on what has been accomplished up to this point.

Gail Marshall  – The subject of what we are going to do in subsequent meetings.  We need to talk about the funding formula, other areas we have not yet determined, feedback from our counsel when that comes in, this is a preliminary plan and we are attempting to leave it open so that we can amend it.  Would like to propose that we not get into funding formula until after the new year.   

Phil Worden – Good idea.  Deserves a thorough and fair look.

Gail Marshall – We don’t have any time constraint on that.

Skip Strong – Brushwein report?

Rob Liebow – Hasn’t seen the consultant’s report yet.  He’s not advocating position, just updating figures that are two years old.

Gail Marshall – Are we in agreement that we’ll get into that in January.

Patrick Smallidge – As a member of MD selectmen, as long as it is addressed before the final draft of that goes out.

Gail Marshall – Before it goes to the voters that has to be processed. 

Brian Hubbell – If the commissioner says it’s finished, that’s fine.  We still have to specify formulas before it goes to voters.  That shouldn’t have any bearing on whether she finds the plan acceptable or not.

Gail Marshall – We get to choose, within certain parameters, when it goes to voters.

Brian Hubbell – A summary of the three key points in the amendment proposed today – elimination of 2 mil requirement, allowing of cost sharing, and some sort of mysterious remedy for loss of state subsidy for units that are combining minimum receivers and non-minimum receivers.  2 mil requirement is not in this document. 

Next meeting tentatively scheduled for January 9, 2008 pending response from commissioner about the plan after December 15^th. 

MOVED by Amy Young, seconded by Laurel Robbins and unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 pm