After over a year of diligent effort, our state mandated Reorganization Planning Committee has met the legal requirement of formulating a reorganization plan that meets the state law, which calls for the consolidation of some school districts in Maine. The Committee labored for months to create an acceptable plan to create a Regional School Unit (RSU) but found it was not possible to put together a rational plan that it could submit.

When a second option for reorganization was introduced in succeeding legislation, the committee agreed to pursue creating an Alternate Organizational Structure (AOS), which is less Draconian in nature, maintains local control for our communities, and allowed us to meet the intent of the law.

Each of the school units involved – the Five Town CSD, Appleton, Hope, Lincolnville, and MSAD #28 – were obliged by law to submit the plan to the Commissioner of Education, who approved the plan.

The Five Town CSD Board submitted the plan as mandated but wishes to make it abundantly clear that our submission of the plan, in conformation with the law, does NOT imply that we support the plan nor that we think voter approval of it is in the best interests of either our children or our taxpayers. In fact, we think that it should be voted down.

It should be voted down for the following reasons:

1. It adds a totally unnecessary layer of administration to the current districts.
2. It will not save our taxpayers money because:
a. When the state subsidy is combined K-12 in all five towns, there will be a considerable loss of annual subsidy to Camden and Rockport, exceeding the amount to be paid annually in penalties for not reorganizing.
b. Appleton, Hope, and Lincolnville may be forced to raise teachers' salaries to be "consistent" with Camden and Rockport.

Therefore, the members of the Five Town CSD Board wish to make clear that it does NOT SUPPORT the AOS consolidation plan that we were directed to submit to the state and, further, we encourage the DEFEAT of the proposal at the referendum on January 27, 2009.

We will continue to be diligent in looking to find financial efficiencies including sharing of services and staff where appropriate. Further, if the proposed AOS plan is defeated, we will continue to work to develop a reorganization plan that works for our children and our taxpayers.

THE ENTIRE AOS PLAN IS PASTED BELOW:

FIVE TOWN RSS
Plan to Reorganize as an Alternative Organizational Structure

School Administrative Units (SAUs) submitting: Five Town CSD, Maine School Administrative District No. 28, Town of Hope School Department, Town of Appleton School Department, Town of Lincolnville School Department (hereinafter collectively “Member School Units”).

Contact information: Michael Weatherwax (RPC Chair) 236-3358, Patricia Hopkins (Five Town CSD and MSAD #28 Superintendent) 236-3358, Deborah Stewart (Union #69 Superintendent) 763-3818

Date submitted by SAUs: October 14 2008

Proposed operational date of the Five Town RSS: July 1, 2009

1. The units of school administration to be included in the proposed Five Town RSS.

Town of Hope School Department, a municipal school unit.
Town of Appleton School Department, a municipal school unit
Town of Lincolnville School Department, a municipal school unit
Maine School Administrative District 28
Five Town CSD, a Community School District


2. The size, composition and apportionment of the governing body.

The Five Town RSS shall be governed by an AOS school committee consisting of representatives of the school committees of the Towns of Appleton, Hope, Lincolnville, and MSAD #28 (Camden and Rockport), and the Five Town CSD as follows::

Municipality Number of Representatives

Appleton 2
Camden 4
Hope 2
Lincolnville 2

Rockport 3

REPRESENTATION # Members
SAD 28 CSD 7
Hope CSD 1
Hope Local Board 1
Appleton CSD 1
Appleton Local Board 1
Lincolnville CSD 1
Lincolnville Local Board 1
TOTAL 13

Votes would be weighted as follows:

Municipal Representation with Weighted Voting (2006 Estimated Population figures)

Town Population # of Votes # of Members Votes per member
Appleton 1335 96 2 48
Camden 5316 384 4 96
Hope 1454 105 2 53
Lincolnville 2197 159 2 80
Rockport 3542 256 3 85
Totals 13844 1000 13




The school committees of Appleton, Hope and Lincolnville shall each choose from their respective memberships one representative to the AOS school. The members of the Board of Directors of MSAD #28 from Rockport shall appoint from among themselves three members to the AOS school committee from Rockport and the members of the Board of Directors of MSAD #28 from Camden shall appoint from among themselves four members to the AOS school committee from Camden. The members of the Five Town CSD school district committee from Appleton, Hope and Lincolnville respectively, shall each appoint from among themselves one member to the AOS school committee. The appointing authorities may also appoint "alternate members" who may attend meetings and exercise voting power in the event that an AOS committee member is unable to attend a meeting. An annual stipend shall be paid to the RSS Board members at a rate set by the Board."

3. The method of voting of the governing body.

Each Five Town RSS school committee member shall have a weighted vote based on the population of the municipality represented as provided in the Interlocal Agreement.

4. The composition, powers and duties of local school committees

No local school committees within the meaning of 20-A M.R.S.A. §1478 shall be created. The composition, powers and duties of the school committees of the Member School Units shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified by the attached Interlocal Agreement or as otherwise provided in this plan.

5. The disposition of real and personal school property.

All real and personal school property of the Member School Units will remain with them.

6. The disposition of existing school indebtedness and lease-purchase obligations if the parties elect not to use the provisions of Section 1506 regarding the disposition of debt obligations.

The indebtedness and lease-purchase obligations of the Member School Units will remain with them.

7. The assignment of school personnel contracts, school collective bargaining agreements and other school contractual obligations.

The following School Union #69 personnel contract and contractual obligations will be transferred to the Five Town RSS: Superintendent of Schools. The following Five Town CSD contracts will be transferred to the RSS: Superintendent of Schools, Special Education Director, Assistant Special Education Director, Business Manager. The following MSAD #28 contract will be transferred to the RSS: Transportation Director. Two currently contracted positions have contracts that expire in 2009, and the decision to renew or not renew those contracts will rest with the RSS Board.

Central office staffs at both the Union #69 and at the Five Town CSD will be transferred to the RSS.

All personnel contracts, school collective bargaining agreements and other school contractual agreements of the Member School Units will remain with them.


8. The disposition of existing school funds and existing financial obligations, including undesignated fund balances, trust funds, reserve funds and other funds appropriated for school purposes.

All existing school funds and existing financial obligations of the Member School Units will remain with them. There are currently no school funds reserved for the core functions of the AOS.

9. A transition plan that addresses the development of a budget for the first school year of the reorganized unit and interim personnel policies.

The Five Town Reorganization Planning Committee shall dissolve on the date that a School Reorganization Plan is approved by the voters of the Towns of Appleton, Camden, Hope, Lincolnville, and Rockport or on June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first.

The Five Town RSS school committee shall be appointed by March 1, 2009 and shall develop the budget for the Five Town RSS for FY 2009-10. The Five Town RSS budget for FY 2009-10 shall be adopted by the voters in accordance with the budget meeting and budget validation referendum procedures applicable to regional school units as provided in the Interlocal Agreement. The Five Town RSS school committee shall employ the Five Town RSS school superintendent and make all other necessary decisions in order for the Five Town RSS to become operational. Present Five Town CSD personnel policies shall serve as the interim policies for the Five Town RSS.


10. Documentation of the public meeting or public meetings held to prepare or review the reorganization plan.

See attached list of RPC meetings. All RPC meetings are public and at each meeting the public is allowed to comment. All meeting agendas, minutes and related documents are available at the office of the Five Town CSD Superintendent. A public forum on the proposed Reorganization Plan will be held prior to the referendum

11. An explanation of how units that approve the reorganization plan will proceed if one or more of the proposed members of the regional school unit fail to approve the plan.

This does not apply to the proposed Five Town RSS since towns are all currently members of the Five Town CSD and the approval or rejection of the plan will be by the aggregate count of those voting in all five municipalities.

However, should the plan not be approved by the majority of those participating in the referendum, then the existing school units will consult with the Department of Education and may explore other reorganization options.

12. An estimate of the cost savings to be achieved by the formation of a regional school unit and how these savings will be achieved.

Initially, due to start-up costs and the costs of existing and future personnel contracts, there probably will be few immediate cost savings for the members of the RSS. In part this is true because we already have explored and realized cost savings over the past ten years by working cooperatively across the Districts. Examples of this collaboration include shared costs for curriculum coordination, for email services, for fuel oil purchases, for some transportation costs (i.e. special education), Additional evidence of this cost sharing and collaboration is that the Five Town CSD and MSAD #28 currently share a Superintendent and other Central Office staff and costs, while the schools of Appleton, Hope, and Lincolnville also share their own Central Office staff and costs under Union #69.
One cost savings will be closing of the Union #69 central office at an estimated savings of $8,000 annually for rent and utilities. Some additional savings are possible in future years due to efficiencies of scale and potential consolidation of positions if that becomes feasible. The overall intention is to reduce costs, but because of the work in making the transition to an AOS, it may not be feasible to do this for the first year or two.
Examples being explored for future reductions include: in the area of RSS administration it may be possible to reduce or combine one or more central office administrative positions resulting in savings of $75,000 in either the 2nd or 3rd year depending upon District needs; in the area of transportation, route efficiencies may be found using the new software being purchased by the State; in the area of special education, it may be possible to reduce or combine positions resulting in savings of $75,000. In addition, we are exploring the special pricing afforded by "Get Best Bid" for supplies and equipment and by the food coop for student lunches.

13. Other matters determined to be necessary.

13-A. Other School Union Assets and liabilities:

Union #69 has a liability of $2945 for a copier lease with Skowhegan Savings which will be transferred to the Five Town RSS.

Ownership of all furniture, computers, software, and other personal property that are currently residing in the central offices of Union #69 and the Five Town CSD will be transferred to the Five Town RSS.

13-B. Tuition Contracts and School Choice

1. Tuition Contracts
As of the date of this plan, Member School Units have no tuition contracts

2. School Choice

School choice among the member units is not an option at this time.

13-C. Claims and Insurance

Continuity of insurance shall be maintained with the assistance of counsel.

13-D. Fewer than 2,500 students

We were previously approved to file a plan with fewer than 2,500 students.

13-E. Plan for Consistent Collective Bargaining Agreements

Current background and context:

There are presently three types of collective bargaining agreements in place within the Member School Units.

The first type of agreement covers the teachers in all of the Member School Units.

The second type of collective bargaining agreement covers the educational technicians and secretaries in the current Five Town CSD and in MSAD #28. The employment of all educational technicians and secretaries in the other Member School Units is not presently covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

The third type of collective bargaining agreement covers the custodians and food service workers in the current Five Town CSD and the custodians, food service workers, and bus drivers in MSAD #28. The employment of custodians and food service workers in the other Member School Units is not presently covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Regional School System plan to achieve consistent bargaining agreements:

The plan to achieve consistent collective bargaining agreements for all teachers in the proposed new Five Town RSS is as follows:

The existing bargaining units, collective bargaining agreements and their expiration dates are as follows:

Five Town CSD

Teachers 8-31-2010
Secretaries and Ed Techs 6-30-2010
Bus drivers, custodians, food service 6-30-2011

M.S.A.D. No. 28

Teachers 8-31-2010
Secretaries and Ed Techs 6-30-2010
Bus drivers, custodians, food service 6-30-2011

Appleton

Teachers 8-31-2009

Hope

Teachers 8-31-2010

Lincolnville

Teachers 8-31-2010

1. SAU school boards

The school board of each school administrative unit shall appoint a negotiating committee that has the authority to bargain and to make tentative agreements with the bargaining agents.

2. AOS Joint Bargaining Advisory Committee

The SAU negotiating committees shall together comprise an AOS-wide Joint Bargaining Advisory Committee. The duties of the committee shall include:

• to review and analyze differences and similarities among existing collective bargaining agreements;
• to make recommendations to the school boards regarding contract provisions that can and should be made consistent, with a particular focus on non-financial contract language;
• to ensure that individual SAU negotiating committees share information and communicate with one another during the process of negotiating contracts;
• to meet and consult with any joint bargaining committee formed by the bargaining agents of the local bargaining units;
• such other duties and functions as may be assigned to them by the SAU school boards.

3. Goals

By working in consultation with the AOS Joint Bargaining Advisory Committee, the SAU school boards shall aspire to the following goals intended to promote consistency among the collective bargaining agreements:

A. In order to put all SAUs on the same bargaining schedule, to achieve a common expiration date for all similar bargaining units by December 31, 2013;

B. To negotiate common language with no financial implications for all contracts covering similar bargaining units by August 31, 2016;

C. To develop a plan to provide for consistent, not to be construed as equal, collective bargaining agreements.

The plan for consistent collective bargaining contracts is subject to the duty of the school boards to negotiate in accordance with applicable law with the recognized bargaining agents of the bargaining units. Therefore, this plan is subject to modification by the AOS school committee and the individual SAU school boards.

13-F: Incorporation of Interlocal Agreement

The Interlocal Agreement for the Creation of Five Town RSS attached to this Plan as Exhibit A, is expressly incorporated into and made a part of this Plan.

After over a year of diligent effort, our state mandated Reorganization Planning Committee has met the legal requirement of formulating a reorganization plan that meets the state law, which calls for the consolidation of some school districts in Maine. The Committee labored for months to create an acceptable plan to create a Regional School Unit (RSU) but found it was not possible to put together a rational plan that it could submit.

When a second option for reorganization was introduced in succeeding legislation, the committee agreed to pursue creating an Alternate Organizational Structure (AOS), which is less Draconian in nature, maintains local control for our communities, and allowed us to meet the intent of the law.

Each of the school units involved – the Five Town CSD, Appleton, Hope, Lincolnville, and MSAD #28 – were obliged by law to submit the plan to the Commissioner of Education, who approved the plan.

The MSAD #28 Board submitted the plan as mandated but wishes to make it abundantly clear that our submission of the plan, in conformation with the law, does NOT imply that we support the plan nor that we think voter approval of it is in the best interests of either our children or our taxpayers. In fact, we think that it should be voted down.

It should be voted down for the following reasons:

1. It adds a totally unnecessary layer of administration to the current districts.
2. It will not save our taxpayers money because:
a. When the state subsidy is combined K-12 with all five towns, a considerable loss in subsidy is largely borne by Camden and Rockport
b. The amount paid annually in penalties for not reorganizing is based on state subsidy. The current decline in state subsidy makes taking the financial penalties less expensive than taking the loss in subsidy to reorganize.

Therefore, the members of the MSAD #28 Board wish to make clear that it does NOT SUPPORT the AOS consolidation plan that we were directed to submit to the state and, further, we encourage the DEFEAT of the proposal at the referendum on January 27, 2009.

We will continue to be diligent in looking to find financial efficiencies including sharing of services and staff where appropriate. Further, if the proposed AOS plan is defeated, we will continue to work to develop a reorganization plan that works for our children and our taxpayers.

The Camden Public Hearing on the Reorganization will be held on Wednesday, January 14, at 6:00 pm in the Bus Barn.

Reorganizational Planning Committee
September 18, 2008 - 6:30 p.m. - Hope Town Library

Agenda:

1. Comments from the public

2. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 11

3. Review of changes in Draft #3 of the AOS Plan (attached)

4. Review of financial projections

Reorganizational Planning Committee
September 11, 2008 --  6:30 p.m.  --  Hope Town Library

Agenda:

1.  Options of the make-up of the various Boards in an AOS

2.  Financial  considerations allocation of subsidies, etc.

3.  Possible regionalization of special education and transportation under the AOS

4.  Steps going forward . . .

Five Town Reorganization Planning Committee
Thursday, August 28, 2008
6:30 p.m. -- Hope Town Library

Agenda:

1. Public comment

2. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of August 14, 2008

3. Review option of an "Alternative Organizational Structure"
Presenter: Robert Liebow, Supt. In Mt. Desert

4. Decision points to be voted upon:

a. Local Committees -- Proposal that local committees be established as sub-committees of the RSU Board. For example, the two RSU Board members from Appleton would be the sub-committee for Appleton. These local committees would be advisory in nature just as would be other sub-committees of the Board.

b. Cost Sharing proposals

i. Additional local costs shall be shared at 50%
EPS, 25% valuation, and 25% pupil count. Pupil count
would be determined by the most recent three-year
average.

ii. Low Circuit Breaker: if the total cost is higher than
previous year, no individual town's cost shall be lower; if
the total cost is lower than previous year, no individual
town's cost shall be higher

iii. High Circuit Breaker: no individual town's percentage
cost increase shall be more than twice the overall
percentage increase.

5. Discussion of "super majority" decisions (to be voted upon at the next meeting). Talking points:

a. What should constitute a "super majority?" Options discussed thus far include: i.) 75% of weighted vote; ii.) 67% of weighted vote;
iii.) the greater of 67% total weighted votes or one more than the two largest towns.

b. What items would require a "super majority" vote? On the table so far are the following:
all votes calling for the elimination of a curricular, co-curricular, or extra-curricular program at one or more grade levels
all votes calling for the elimination of a grade level on the combining of two or more grade levels within or across schools
all votes related to class size policies
all votes related to the formation of local Boards
all votes related to any dissolution of the RSU

c. Is it desirable to allow a municipality to agree to locally fund a program or staff position that has been eliminated by a "super majority" vote?

6. Discussion regarding potential language that might assist the RSU Board in its first year(s) of operation. Ideas that have been offered have included not permitting (or limiting) student transfers and delaying program equalization.

At the last RPC meeting on June 26, the Committee decided that it did not want to meet on July 3 due to the July 4th holiday.  The next two meeting dates were changed to:

 

Thursday, July 10, at the Hope Town Library at 6:30 pm

Thursday, July 24, at the Bus Barn in Camden at 6:30 pm

To:  RPC Members
From:  Mike Weatherwax
Date:  May 20, 2008

RE:  DOE Update

 

Last night I attended one of the four sessions that Commissioner Gendron is presenting to share information about changes to the law resulting from the enactment of LD 2323 and to answer questions about the implementation.  Attached in PDF format are the two handouts from that meeting as well as another copy of the letter stating where/when the other three sessions will occur in case any of you wish to attend (closest is in Ellsworth on May 22).

 

I won't try to repeat all of the information that is in the handouts, but I do encourage you to read these.  A couple of important pieces of information:

 

1.  When the language says that bargaining contracts must be "consistent," that essentially means they need to the the same for salaries and benefits -- I understand that there is a three year window for achieving this consistency as contracts expire.

 

2.  The penalties are now pretty clearly laid out for schools that receive minimum subsidies (MSAD #28) and for other receivers (the rest of our schools). -- see pp. 4-5 of the "Summary" document.

 

3.. The things that we have been discussing -- local boards, etc. -- are supported in the law, so we are ok with this so far.

 

4.  There is language about the opportunity to create an "Aletrnative Organizational Structure" (AOS).  Under this system there appears to be more latitude in organizational structure -- for example, a local board could be the employer of personnel although contracts would still need to be "consistent."  It also calls for interlocal agreements that must be approved by municipal bodies (I am not yet sure how these agreements would work).

 

5.  "Core curriculum" is defined as those things in the eight parts of the Maine Learning Results.

 

6.  As of July 1, 2009, school unions will no longer exist as governance structures, but CSD and SAD structures could still exist in places where RSU's are not approved.  A town currently in a Union that votes down becoming part of an RSU would then be governed under the municipal system.

 

7.  Under the general law and as we have discussed them, local boards would not need to have RSU administrators (e.g. Superintendent) at their local board meetings.  Not sure if this is also true for AOS boards.

 

8.  Schools that do not become RSU's and instead take the penalties do have future opportunities to form an RSU -- e.g. if the penalties become too much, then schools could reconsider.

 

9.  In the case of a district that notified the DOE it was refusing to submit a plan, they are exploring with the Attorney General withholding that District's subsidy from January, 2009-July, 2009. (Penalities would then kick in in july, 2009).

 

10.  Next year will be a very challenging one for schools to get subsidy information from the DOE -- Superintendents will get estimates in January but will not get final numbers until mid-April at the earliest.

 

For Handouts, click here:  Summary of Reorganization Law   Letter from Susan Gendron 5/08/08Gendron Presentation May 16

 

To:  Reorganization Planning Committee
From:  Mike Weatherwax
Date:  March 10, 2008

RE:  Reorganization Planning Legislation

Pat, Deb, and I went to a workshop this morning presented by Drummond and Woodsum regarding the reorganization planning.  While a large part of the workshop dealt with budget referendum issues, they also provided a very clear description of the muddled status of current legislation.  I am going to try to present that information as follows:

1.  LD 1932 is the amendment to the Reorganization Legislation that was developed last fall by the Legislative Education Committee to provide a "fix" to problems in the original legislation.  It was anticipated that this legislation would be passed the first week in January, but that is not how things
went . . .

Included in the original LD 1932 were the following (only listed major items below):
a.)  provisions for alternative cost sharing methods
b.)  provisions for amending  cost sharing formulas
c.)  repealing the requirement of a two mill minimum
d.)  continuation of minimum subsidy allocations
e.)  delay of the budget validation referendum process to 2009
f.)  changing the 2% limitation on voting authority to 5%

2.  LD 1932 was then amended by both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  The most controversial amendments were as follows:
a.)  the Damon amendment permits the creation of "super unions" with local towns maintaining significant powers including local collective bargaining, hiring of teachers, etc. just as school unions do now.
b.)  the Ray amendment provides for dissolving or getting out of an RSU
c.) the Martin amendment provides for requiring the budget validation process for all municipalities in an RSU "union"

LD 1932 passed in the Senate by a vote of 21 to 13

3.  Next the House took up LD 1932.  They added two additional amendments and the legislation passed by 86 to 61 (or a vote close to that).

4.  The House version went back to the Senate today so that the two versions could be combined and they are working on that right now so that one version can go to the Governor.  The Governor has said that he will veto this legislation, I think primarily because of the Damon amendment.  He has ten days to veto it after he receives it.  If it is vetoed, it can go back to the Legislature and if it gets a 2/3 vote the veto is overridden and it becomes law.

5.  Simultaneously, the Governor has introduced his budget Legislation and attached to that is most of the original LD 1932 with the exception that the Governor took out those parts that he did not like.  He took out the following:
a.)  the delay in the budget validation referendum
b.)  the change in the last date for an RSU referendum
c.)  the entire Damon amendment re "super unions"
d.)  the change from a 2% to a %5 limitation on voting authority
e.)  the entire Ray amendment re dissolving an RSU

So, there were lots of questions (but no clear answers) about if the original LD 1932 is passed, how does that impact the changes in the Governor's legislation  i.e. who wins?

At any rate, it looks like we will still need to wait a few more weeks to see how things shake out before we should meet again with hopefully a definitive set of rules.

The one brighter note is that today the Commissioner today sent a letter saying that if we did not change anything from our December plan submission, then we did not need to submit a plan by March 28; rather, we can send a letter stating that there have been no changes.