Regional Education Task Force

Transition Team Meeting

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Superintendent’s Conference Room – Huse School – Bath, Maine



Members Present: Chet Garrison – Co-Chair, David Miller, Jean Flynn, Julie Rice, Ross Berkowitz, Walter Macintire, Bill Haggett, Tom MacDonald, William Shuttleworth, Christine Malin, Eloise Vitelli, Mark Westrum,



Members Absent: None



Others Present: Alex Lear, Don Cowing, Dave Longstreet, Doug Rooks, Alan Cartwright, Susan Corerrentes



  1. Call to Order – Meeting called to order at 4:33pm by Chairman Garrison



  1. Opening Remarks by Co-Chairs – Excellent, productive meeting on Saturday, April 21, 2007. Thanks to all who participated.



  1. Adjustments to the Agenda


Approve April 11, 2007 minutes – 4.7



  1. New Business:


    1. Union 47 feedback issues


How did this list get generated? From a joint meeting of all 5 towns. The School Board members came up with questions that they had as well as questions anticipated from citizens.


Mr Miller – What happens if one of our communities votes no on regionalization?


Chair Garrison – This would not stop the process, the town that voted no would need to contract for their students’ education.


Mr Shuttleworth – The commissioner has the right to assign the town to a school unit and has sent out a letter to the towns who have not as yet participated in a regionalization process. The only units who may be exempt are those with 2,500 or more students.


Ms Malin – These feedback issues were all a part of the brainstorming session and we have no way to know how people will react.


Ms Flynn – Union 47 needs to have a one-page sheet showing how tuition is derived and what it can be used for.


Ms Malin – All communities need to be educated on this issue, not only Union 47.


Mr Miller – Vocational Schools will not be a part of regionalization, nor will the Regional Board be overseeing the Vocational Schools, correct?


Mr Shuttleworth – No, the Regional Board


Ms Flynn – It seems to me that Mr Shuttleworth’s financial documents and Educational Excellence handout would answer these questions.


Ms Malin – Where are the benchmarks for accountability is one of the major concerns from the Union 47 questions.


Mr Berkowitz – There is an element of the unknown with responsibilities being turned over to the Regional Board. I do not think we can set the benchmarks for the Regional Board.


Mr Haggett – There are a number of issues that have been raised here that need clarification, and then there are other issues that have been addressed, and other issues will need to be addressed by the Regional School Board. That Board is going to be responsible to the voters and will be made up of citizens from each community.


Ms Vitelli – Possibly it would be appropriate for this group to come up with recommendations that the new board to build trust in the community that their concerns have been heard. There are many uncertainties out there that we may be able to allay.


Mr Cartwright – This would possibly be used as a platform for people running for the seats on the new board to run on.


Mr Haggett – I would like to see the incoming school board be asked to consider our recommendations and that we not attempt to dictate to the incoming school board. We do not want to create controversy by making our recommendations too specific.


Mr MacIntire – The issues seem to boil down to “do it better or do it cheap” and it seems that these issues need to be balanced to “do it better and cheaper”. This would be a unifying opportunity.


Ms Vitelli – There are levels of specificity that we need to get to and some levels we should not go to. There are the core elements, principles we would like to see implemented, and elements that will be expected in a certain time frame, etc. If it is not going to be better, what is the point; if it is not going to be cheaper, what is the point?


Mr MacIntire – A vision needs to put history behind.


Mr Berkowitz - We could come up with our list of recommendations that we think are important and use these as fixed debates that the people running for the positions on the new board would speak to.


Mr Haggett – We do not have much time for too many specifics. We would need to ask the professionals for their view of the future and some members of this committee are more qualified than others to deal with some of these issues. I came into this determined to improve the quality of education and the discussion has swung to drop-out rates and other extremes. We do not have much time.


Mr MacDonald – If our premise on selling this is financial and quality efficiencies, the blueprint that Mr Shuttleworth presented is what we should be aiming out. The responsibility of this task force is not to decide how to make these changes (drop-out rates, etc) it is the responsibility of the new board.


Ms Malin – I did not think of this being a means to begin a platform for people to run on and this is a good idea. We have a long history of being together and being apart and coming together again. We know there is history and we are listening to citizen’s concerns and this is our recommendation on how this process should proceed. People need to know that they are being listened to.


Mr MacDonald – We need to do justice to the Union 47 concerns, but we could spend hours on this. Possibly we could group the issues and address a few important issues in each group?


Chair Garrison – Should we bring the chairs of the previous task force sub-committee together to group this?

Ms Vitelli – A sub-group needs to look at this document to group these issues into 3 categories of we have already answered, we will answer, we will not be able to answer.


By Consensus a sub-committee will be created to take this document.


Ms Vitelli - Could the consultants take a first stab of this?


Mr Rooks – I would prefer to work with a sub-committee.


Sub-Committee volunteers: Ms Malin, Mr Haggett, Ms Flynn, Ms Vitelli



    1. Timeline for Plan Revision


Mr Haggett – If we can adopt the recommendations from Saturday’s meeting we can set this right now. We should target having revisions completed by the middle of May.


Ms Rice – Do we need to vote on the decisions made in the workshop on Saturday?


Motion by Ms Rice to accept the positions we took for each of the challenges (as finalized and corrected on April 24, 2007) created during the April 21, 2007 workshop. Seconded by Mr Haggett.


Unamimously approved.



    1. Timeline for Public Hearings & Process


Ms Vitelli – Mr Haggett suggested mid-May for a timeline and this would require review by our attorney.


Ms Flynn – what happened to the legal issues we identified?


Mr Miller – the sub-committee is meeting with Mr Roger Therriault, esq. tomorrow.


Ms Vitelli – they will need to understand that we will need to get the answers back soon.


Mr Haggett – It may take a while to determine how we logistically make the changes that will be required. What we have done is vote on the fundamental change that needs to occur.


Mr Shuttleworth – The necessary legislation is the critical point. We can not continue without this change.


Mr Miller – The things that we agreed on in the workshop need to be voted on to send the issues to the attorney and the legislature.


Mr Berkowitz – Can we draft legislation to remove schools from taxes.


Mr Shuttleworth – No. Good try!


Mr Haggett – What we need in determining a timeline is to have a revised plan and possibly the legislation.


Mr Rooks – Some key questions are you trying to write legislation for all school districts or only for this one?


Mr Shuttleworth – Just this one.


Mr Rooks – This could potentially be put on a fast track if it is a very air-tight plan before it went before the legislative committee. You will need to identify exactly which pieces of the state statutes are blocking what you need to accomplish. Do not add ANYTHING that is extraneous.


Ms Malin – If the legislation was held off until the next session…


Mr Rooks – The committee knows what you are up to and you may be able to get the legislation addressed early in the next legislative session.


Mr Haggett – There is great potential merit for this region if we get it out in front of the State so that we have our own and would not be under subsequent legislation submitted by the State rather than attempting to opt out after the State.


Chair Garrison – We did begin this process prior to the State and we should move as quickly on this as we can.


Mr Rooks – there is a possibility that the State may not be ready in this legislative session with their solution. If you can get this done in this session there is substantial interest in the State to show that regionalization can happen successfully. You are pioneers and if you stay ahead you may get a favorable view from the legislative committee.


Mr Shuttleworth – If the state passes their legislation first they would not want us to preempt them.


Mr Berkowitz – Why do we not have a bill before the legislation now?


Mr Haggett – We just agreed on the principles now and could not prior to tonight.


By consensus take the output from the April 21, 2007 (as finalized by April 24, 2007) and send this to the attorney to begin writing legislation.


Rep Leila Percy is the point person and Ms Vitelli will contact her to get a draft of the legislation to her prior May 15, 2007.


Mr Miller – we need a published piece to disseminate to counter the Governor’s proposal. I would liaison with Walter Briggs to create this. Until we have this bill that we have sent to the legislature we cannot go to the citizens. We can start planning for public forums after June.


Mr Rooks – There is the potential to have public hearings to answer concerns early in the process and be able to revise the plan from a public point of view.


Mr Miller – we need to have a way to present our plan in a way that people would easily see that this is a good plan. A persuasive concise piece.


Mr MacDonald – We need to know which sections of state law will need to be changed to be able address questions from citizens. We also need to do this locally to see where municipal changes need to be made.


Mr Haggett – Would it be possibly to get each of the town’s attorneys in the same room to get these answers quickly?


Mr MacDonald – the sub-committee can ask Mr Therriault tomorrow.


Mr Shuttleworth – I think Mr Therriault & Mr Stockmeyer should be talking.


Ms Vitelli – We need the school personnel to buy into this process sooner than later.


Ms Malin – Mr Briggs indicated that he would be interested in being involved with the public hearing phase of this process.


Mr Miller – Mr Briggs has some very good ideas on how to present. We want people to say “we got it right”.


Mr Haggett – We should start public hearings in late May.


Mr Rooks – Professional personnel should be addressed first. You should call these informational sessions rather than public hearings which has more of a legal implication.

By consensus we will begin informational sessions in late May and prioritize the audiences we will begin with.


Mr Berkowitz – We should not segregate teachers from other school personnel.


Mr Shuttleworth – We need to have a single message that is presented to all informational sessions and to keep the continuity we should use the same presenters at each.


Ms Vitelli – Possibly have at least 2 public meetings in May and early June rather than waiting until after Labor Day.


Ms Flynn – Our March 16, 2007 document identified 6 stakeholder groups.


Ms Malin – The public materials should be added to our website.


Ms Vitelli – Materials could also be handed out at Town Meetings.


Mr Berkowitz – We need to be cognizant of other events and meetings.



    1. William to Review Cost Data Charts


Mr Haggett – Has it been determined that we are region 1?


Mr Shuttleworth – If we get going first we should be region 1? Mr Shuttleworth walked the Task Force through the charts. Debt services and transportation are not considered recognized costs.


Mr Haggett – there are not many students in K-5. Why are there so many fewer students going from Union 47 to Morse from 2003 to present?


Mr Shuttleworth – I will look into this.


Mr Macintire – I am working with other school districts and they are looking to have no central office.


Mr Shuttleworth – we anticipate eliminating the equivalent of 1 central office staff. If there is any other data that anyone else needs I would be glad to get this.



    1. Plan for Developing Legislation


Postponed until a later meeting



    1. Kate Reilley - Demographer (Invited)


Kate Reiley – demographer was unable to attend & someone from her office will attend the next meeting.









    1. Approve April 11, 2007 minutes


Motion by Ms Flynn and seconded by Mr Haggett. Corrections – name spelling should be Giroux, and under 4.4 “The Newall PTA” should be the “Dike-Newall PTA” In future note who made and seconded and motions.


Unanimously approved.



  1. Closing Remarks


None



  1. Public Comment


Mr Longstreet – there are no minutes on the website. Chair Garrison – they will be added tomorrow.


Chair Garrison – I need the Task Force Report emailed to me, please.


Mr Longstreet – I assume that any transfers of assets are not just buildings and contents, but also the building assets.


Mr Cowling – A “road show” needs to be gotten going as soon as possible. Already citizens are looking to vote this down in Georgetown.



  1. Set next meeting and agenda for May 1, 2007




  1. Adjourn


Adjourned by consensus at 6:30pm





Minutes taken by Susan Look