Reorganization Planning Committee Meeting
3 September 2008 DRAFT Minutes
Present: Bill Ferm, Facilitator Gail Marshall, Chair Brian Hubbell, Vice-Chair
Bar Harbor: Bob Garland Southwest Harbor: Skip Strong, Amy Young, Kristin Hutchins
Trenton: Judy Sproule, Mike Swanson Mt. Desert: Patrick Smallidge
Others in attendance: Rob Liebow, Chris Downing, Amy Davis and Rick Barter
Commencement of Meeting
Gail Marshall called the meeting to order at 7:02 a.m.
Review of Draft Minutes from 6 August 2008
MOVED by Skip Strong, seconded by Bob Garland and unanimously voted to approve the minutes of
6 August 2008 as written.
Review of Approval Letter from Commissioner of Education and Approval of Clarifications to Plan
Gail Marshall - The commissioner conditionally approved the RPC plan based upon changes the school boards will make to the inter-local agreement. When we did the powers and duties of the AOS board, we overlooked the fact that by state statute, there are legal responsibilities and duties that a superintendent has and responsibilities and duties that a school board has. One could argue that we were blurring the lines, but it was unintentional. We have gone back and clarifies the powers and duties the school board has versus a superintendent. Often the changes are simply to change the word “administer” which is what an administrator would do, to “oversee” which is what a school board would do. The purpose is to delineate the legal territory between superintendents and school boards. It’s how we have always operated. The reorganization does not change that.
Brian Hubbell – In our defense, the reason we used that language is that we were following the law. We are just clarifying it now by using “oversee”.
Gail Marshall – Section 16 - “Termination of Inter-Local Agreement”. One of the aspects of the current law is that there is no way for a community to get out of this system. The reason we delineated was that if a system decided they didn’t want to be a part of this and they didn’t want to have consistent contracts and collective bargaining, that would be grounds for the rest of the community to consider whether or not the community thought it was counterproductive to the system to continue to make this work. We wrote this provision and the commissioner responded that because it is the legal authority of the state and the commissioner to approve any and all school organizations, including unions, that she would need to sign off on any removal of a school from a system. We had a discussion about that with her and asked what she thought her responsibility in this area was. She said like SAD systems that want to separate from one another her only responsibility is to make sure the law is complied with. She didn’t consider it her responsibility to keep people “in a bad marriage”. This whole section is expanding what is in the law.
Brian Hubbell – The way we had it originally approved, she had authority over the plan for the distribution of assets anyway before any dissolution could be accomplished. All this change is that she reviews ahead of the vote as opposed to afterwards.
Kristin Hutchins – This is what she has always done anyway?
Gail Marshall – If an SAD said they didn’t want to be an SAD anymore there are procedures for dealing with that and part of that process eventually ends up on the commissioner’s desk.
Kristin Hutchins – She may not want to force people to continue in a relationship that doesn’t work, but that could change and we don’t know what the criteria are. We can only assume that the current administration doesn’t want this to fall apart in the next two years.
Gail Marshall – Personally agree. Doesn’t think we have much latitude here. This is going to come up in other school districts where there is no provision for dissolution or reconfiguration.
Patrick Smallidge – Sounds like this used to be a rubber stamp and she [commissioner] is now setting it up so it is not. This sets up the parameters so it can be used. We are talking about the Union 98 structure.
I don’t foresee any problems in the immediate future for us, but what if Trenton gets a better deal? Remembers Selectman Grierson feeling strongly that there should be a clear-cut withdrawal. And noting that the lack of clear-cut withdrawal in the high school legislative act was a problem and that we should ensure that. This board made sure that there was a good way for the legislative body of the individual towns to express their democratic will and she has put the stop sign up.
Gail Marshall – Doesn’t think it’s a new stop sign. In Union 98, if we didn’t have any of this legislation and one town wanted out of Union 98, you’d have to go through the commissioner. Agree that it is an unknown. If we got into a real struggle we might have difficulties with Augusta.
Brian Hubbell – Good exercise to put ourselves in their position in relation to this. What they are afraid of is not so much that the circumstances we describe as a “bad marriage”, they saw it as a real possibility of an escape hatch for other structures all over the state. If they didn’t have any authority over groups voting to disband then they were imagining that would happen frequently. It’s unrealistic to expect they would give up any chance to review. They already get that under Title 30-A. The department’s approval is necessary for any inter-local agreement so there is a legal argument that she would have review over any alterations anyway. This just makes it explicit. We’re better off having a termination mechanism in our plan.
Patrick Smallidge – Is Title 30-A part of the original law?
Gail Marshall – That’s the inter-local agreement law.
Patrick Smallidge - Do we have a copy of the legislative mandate that gives her the authority before the consolidation? Is there a change in that or is this a firm statement of her authority? If we look back to the beginning of this issue, it was to save the state money, not the schools. We have done a great deal to preserve the town’s ability to run their schools, yet she is coming and letting us know she has the authority.
Gail Marshall – Don’t think it significantly changes the authority she has. If we didn’t have this provision in here we’d have nothing. This document is clearly going to be used as a model for anyone in the state who wants an AOS. They are looking beyond the terms of our document and how it’s going to ripple out to other communities and how they’re going to use it. Thinks this clarification is not powerfully important in the foreseeable future, although we can’t plan for every contingency, but we’ve gotten a lot further than I think she anticipated we would get in writing provisions like this. About what 20-A, the education law, says about school systems is that nobody forms or alters a school system without the commissioner being involved.
Rob Liebow – She used the words “she would not ever use her power to block anything.” Her role would be to make sure the process and law were followed but she didn’t have the power to make sure we had the meetings, voted correctly, etc. She used the word “rubber stamp” and that she’s never used it to block any situation even though she was totally against the falling apart of an SAD. Her job was to make sure that the law was followed and what was left complied with the law. She was ultimately responsible to make sure people had gone through the process.
Bob Garland – Does the DOE at present have any kind of a mediation function? Would there be a mediation function come into play?
Rob Liebow – There is a clause in the SAD or CSD law or both that says how you change the make up of the board or how it is funded and there is an attempt at the local level to reach consensus and if they don’t reach it, she sends in her group to provide facts, figures, and background information. It’s pretty specific about how that whole process goes through in how you make changes.
Bob Garland – This is an end result following all of that process.
Gail Marshall – That process will not exist anymore. The SAD law will be repealed. If the question is, does she currently have a process to do that, the answer is yes, but will she have that after July 1? I don’t think so. That’s why I’m suggesting that the termination issue which has not been addressed in the RPC realm will probably raise it’s head in the legislature.
Rob Liebow – Even in our own private and special act that created the high school, there is the clause about withdrawal that has been trodden upon that it’s worn thin, it can’t happen unless there is a special act of the legislature to approve that. All the towns could get together and say they want to fall apart, but those who created it have to sign off on the exit of that by special act of the legislature. It’s a check and balance requirement.
Judy Sproule – Title 30-A is very explicit that she or any state agency has this authority over any municipality entering into an inter-local agreement. It’s an issue of using this as a model for other groups to come. Even if our agreement said nothing, this would still apply.
Kristin Hutchins – All we’re doing in our agreement is referencing the language in 30-A.
Gail Marshall – Yes.
Patrick Smallidge – We’re recognizing her authority under Title 30-A. How flexible is the language we use? Is that word-for-word what she wants?
Brian Hubbell – That language came from Dick Spencer. It’s not their language. It’s our language.
Gail Marshall – The school boards are voting on this and then the towns will have referenda. This meeting is to make sure we are all comfortable with these changes.
MOVED by Patrick Smallidge, seconded by Bob Garland and unanimously voted to approve the amendments that have been dictated in the letter from the commissioner.
Skip Strong commented that we did good job coming through this with only two edits.
Plans for November Referendum
Gail Marshall – What would we like to consider doing between now and the referendum?
Judy Sproule – Trenton is sending out a newsletter describing all the aspects of this move and announcing a public meeting for the 24th. Some staff suggested that since they have so many parents who don’t go to meetings, Judy is going to be at school in the morning and afternoon the day of the meeting and the day after the meeting to help inform them about this. Have a regional meeting and then the town meeting also.
Gail Marshall – Do we want to have a system-wide meeting?
Brian Hubbell – Put emphasis on local meetings and if there are any issues that arise from those, there might be the need for the regional one following the local ones. If local ones are effective, not critical that there be a regional one.
Kristin Hutchins – The local ones better be effective. Between selectmen and school board they should have a local meeting.
Gail Marshall – Should there be one organization that actually prepares a document that explains the inter-local agreement and the plan? Should Union 98 do it?
Brian Hubbell – The draft that Judy Sproule drew up was tremendous, particularly because it was aimed at the concerns of Trenton. We should be able to provide information as necessary to local groups and ultimately your responsibility of what to present. We could assist, but the concerns may be different in different towns.
Gail Marshall – Giving people a starting point would be of great assistance.
Rob Liebow – We have the frequently asked questions from the last public forum and then you could present the inter-local agreement and the plan.
Amy Young – As the boards are developing their programs for their meetings lean on Brian and Gail. The framework and basic information we need for these local meetings are there.
Gail Marshall – Also put information pieces in the papers.
Patrick Smallidge – Have the chairs of the school boards address several of those questions. Gail Marshall and Brian Hubbell should probably attend the Trenton public forum.
Adjournment
MOVED by Skip Strong, seconded by Amy Young and unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 8:11 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Selena Dunbar
Recording Secretary