Central Aroostook RPC Meeting
August 06, 2008
6:00 pm
Easton Elementary School Cafeteria
SAU’s Participating: Bridgewater, Easton, MSAD #42, MSAD #45
Members Present:
Bridgewater: Terri Allen; Nina Bradstreet; Duska Kingsbury
Easton: Norman Trask; Tom Osgood; Dave Hopkins; Frank Keenan, Superintendent (Liaison)
MSAD #42: Nathan Smith; James McClay; Greg Day; Todd Grass; Carolee Hallett; Roger Shaw, Superintendent (Liaison)
MSAD #45: Andrea Powers; Jerry Dow; Tim Humphrey; Michael McIntosh; Ed Buckley, Superintendent (Liaison)
Non-Members Present: Gerald Clockedile (RPC Facilitator)
Members Absent: Wayne Bradbury (Bridgewater); Butch Richardson (Bridgewater); Gehrig Johnson (Bridgewater Liaison); Ellen Schneider (Bridgewater Liaison): Mike Corey (Easton); Daren Churchill (MSAD #45); Theresa Cochran (MSAD #45); Jan Greico (MSAD #45); Cary Schumacker (MSAD #45)
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm in the Easton Elementary School cafeteria by Chairperson, Tom Osgood (Easton).
2. New business – none.
3. Adjustments to the agenda – none requested.
4. Public comment – none.
5. Attendance taken by Frank Keenan (Easton).
6. Facilitator Update/Comments – Jake Clockedile reported on several pieces of new information.
a. Mr. Clockedile stated that the Department has chosen Infinite Campus as their IT/Database platform and that RSU districts that are approved and formed will have access to the entire Infinite Campus system free of any charges for software, hardware, maintenance, et al. This is a web based software service and initially it will include state reporting, student records, and financial software modules. The Department is also considering adding Transportation/Bus Routing (GIS based) software modules as they get further along in the process. This could be a significant savings depending upon a School Unit’s existing platform. More information will be forthcoming on this topic this fall.
b. The Commissioner has clarified questions about the timing of the penalty for failure to consolidate. Any community that has failed to consolidate and is thus out of compliance on February 1, 2009 is subject to the penalties. If communities that are out of compliance at that point are still working in good faith to find partners and are thus performing due diligence, they won’t have their monthly subsidy withheld.
c. After reviewing the financial and structural makeup of our RSU, Mr. Clockedile states that he doesn’t see any significant savings for the first 2 or 3 years. However, he believes that, over time, there will be significant savings due to efficiencies possible as a consolidated district that won’t be there if the SAU’s remain separate.
d. A discussion occurred about the comparison of the penalties that the districts face with the costs of merging the teacher and hourly wage contract costs.
e. Mr. Clockedile brought more approved plans to be used as models for subcommittee work.
f. Discussion/Questions Since Last Meeting – None.
7. Updates by SAU Superintendents. Mr. Osgood asked if the Superintendents present wanted to update the group on anything new. No updates were given.
8. Motion by Todd Grass (MSAD #42), 2nd by Carolee Hallett (MSAD #42) to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2008 meeting. Approved unanimously.
9. Subcommittee questions/concerns – none.
10. Members broke out into subcommittee groups at 6:30 pm to work on their areas of the plans.
11. Return to full committee at 8:35 pm. Reports of Subcommittees:
a. Governance: Norman Trask (Easton) spoke on the progress of the Governance Subcommittee discussions. Norm reported that the group reviewed several plans adopted by other RPC groups as guides to their discussions and that his group discussed the various sections of the plan that they were responsible for presenting to the full group. They worked through a proposal for the size of the new RSU board and the number of representatives for each community and how much weight each board member will have in their votes. Their proposal will allow for at least one board member from each town. The votes of each will be weighted by the number of people they represent. The subcommittee also discussed the strategy to follow if one or more communities vote no on the final plan and will present that strategy for discussion.
At this juncture, Mr. Clockedile interjected news that the Commissioner had received a ruling from the Attorney General that if some communities vote no on the final plan and, as a result, those who vote yes don’t have enough population to comply with the law, then they will be subject to the penalty as well as the towns who vote no.
Mr. Clockedile also informed the group that the State’s new information system will be installed in those districts who complete their plans and vote to consolidate first, those not approved or who vote no will be the last to receive access to the system. He noted that every district, whether consolidated or not, will need at least one person highly trained in technology to work on this information system successfully.
Lastly, he informed the group that a consultant named Lori LaChance was preparing a PowerPoint presentation for the state that would show the demographic, population and financial challenges facing the state that she feels makes consolidation essential.
Mr. Clockedile reminded the group that we are required, by law, to submit a progress report to the commissioner by August 15, 2008. He stated there are currently 6 consolidation plans that have been approved by the Commissioner. A question was asked of Mr. Clockedile about what were the options available to the communities who vote no on the plan—he stated:
1) Take the penalty and remain alone
2) Go back and work with partners to see if the plan can be revised so that it would be approved
3) Look for new possible partners to develop a plan with
Mr. Trask then continued with his report stating that the group had spent some time discussing whether local boards should be part of the plan, and if so, the level of authority that would be optimal. He pointed out the dilemma facing most communities—if there is no local board or a local board with little authority, it may lead to the plan being defeated. If there is a local board with strong authority, if the plan is adopted, it could lead to serious conflicts between the local boards and the new RSU board. His committee will be looking for input from the full committee at future meetings.
b. Contracts/Educational Planning: Greg Day (SAD #42) reported for the Contracts/Educational Planning Subcommittee. His group had reviewed all administrative contracts and master contracts for teachers and hourly wage staff. They spent a lot of time discussing ways to find savings in the 4 areas the state has proposed savings to be found: a) district & building administration; b) transportation; c) building maintenance & d) Special Education.
They are looking for more information from SAD #1 concerning the vocational school there which receives students from each of our districts for part of their academic programs. They are in the process of creating a draft proposal of new RSU district administration for discussion purposes.
c. Disposition of Property: Todd Grass (SAD #42) reported for the Disposition of Property subcommittee. He stated that they found the Sheepscot Valley RPC plan to be very helpful and had everything their group was looking for. It has already been approved by Drummond Woodsum so it will pass legal muster. SAD #45 will be holding a town meeting to determine how they want their property to be managed and controlled if part of a new RSU. Easton needs to determine what part of the property is school use mainly and what part is to be considered town use first. Bridgewater’s decision will depend on a possible vote to close their school.
d. Finance: Mike McIntosh (SAD #45) reported that their subcommittee had reviewed proposed language on the dispositions of trust funds, reserve funds, scholarship funds and student activity funds. They presented a handout with their proposed language for review by the full RSU committee. He stated that at this time there is no litigation pending against any of the districts. Mr. Clockedile stated that if any such litigation presented itself prior to the completed plan being presented to the commissioner, all RPC members should be informed and a plan voted on how the new RSU would deal with potential financial implications. Mr. Clockedile also noted that we should each review with our insurance company the possibility of coverage this year to cover possible litigation that may occur from events before the RSU is formed, but not fully litigated until after the new RSU is formed and the old SAU’s dissolved.
e. Other Discussion Items – none.
12. Facilitator Summary Comments: Jake Clockedile
Mr. Clockedile praised the group for the quality and quantity of work completed during the evening. Tom Osgood asked if Kim Hall could use the Sheepscot Valley plan as a format to follow as the RPC started making formal approval in the various aspects of the plan. Mr. Clockedile felt that would make an excellent format for Kim to use to build a copy of our plan.
13. Next meeting date: Mr. Osgood asked if the group wanted the next meeting to be held in Easton or in one of the other districts to give public in other districts the chance for input and to observe the process. The consensus was to continue in Easton until significant amounts of the plan were voted by the RPC and then hold meetings in the other districts to inform and receive feedback. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 6:00 pm in the Easton Elementary School Cafeteria. Approved by consensus.
14. Next Meeting Suggested/Additional Agenda Items – addition of Governance Committee report on retaining local School Boards in addition to RSU BOD – pros/cons discussion to get input from entire RSU Committee.
15. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Frank Keenan
Interim Recording Secretary
Central Aroostook RPC Membership
Name Community Phone E-mail
Terri Allen Bridgewater 425-2161 polyop61@hotmail.com
Wayne Bradbury Bridgewater 227-2828 janet@pioneercable.net
Nina Bradstreet Bridgewater 429-8130 ninab@stepstones4youth.org
Duska Kingsbury Bridgewater 425-7149 duska@pwless.net
Butch Richardson Bridgewater 429-8811 rrichardson2ainop.com
Ellen Schneider* Bridgewater 764-4101 ellen.schneider@sad1.org
Gehrig Johnson* Bridgewater 764-4101 gehrig@sad1.org
Norman Trask Easton 764-4193 ntrask@curriertrask.com
Michael Corey Easton 488-6917 mcorey@hydroblendinc.com
Tom Osgood Easton 488-6932 tosgood@mamusg.com
Dave Hopkins Easton 227-3446 dhopkins@ces-maine.com
Frank Keenan* Easton 488-7700 frank.keenan@eastonschooldistrict.org
Roger Shaw* MSAD #42 425-3771 rshaw@sad42.k12.me.us
Nathan Smith MSAD #42 429-8095 polisciguy02@hotmail.com
James McClay MSAD #42 227-8606 jmcclay@amhc.org
Greg Day MSAD #42 425-5301 gskkday@verizon.net
Carolee Hallett MSAD #42 425-2242 carolee@07me.com
Todd Grass MSAD #42 429-9497 toddgrass@hotmail.com
Daren Churchill MSAD #45 455-4046 dschurchill@verizon.net
Andrea Powers MSAD #45 455-1002 townmanager@washburnmaine.org
Jerry Dow MSAD #45 455-5913 perhamtown@yahoo.com
Michael McIntosh MSAD #45 455-4812 m_mcintosh@yahoo.com
Jan Grieco MSAD #45 455-4907 jangrieco@ainop.com
Theresa Cochran MSAD #45 455-5865 tcochran@ainop.com
Edward Buckley* MSAD #45 455-8301 edpbuckley@yahoo.com
Cary Schumacker MSAD #45
Tim Humphrey MSAD #45 455-4988 jandthumphrey@aol.com
Jake Clockedile Old Orchard 205-5334 ggclock@gwi.net