CORRECTED BY RPC AT ITS NOVEMBER 7, 2007, MEETING
(Please discard previous versions.)
LISBON/M.S.A.D.
No. 75
REORGANIZATION
PLANNING COMMITTEE
October
24, 2007
The Lisbon/M.S.A.D. No. 75 Reorganization Planning
Committee met at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at
Committee members present were: (from Bowdoin) Leroy Letourneau, Tim Lavan
and Kim Totten; (from Bowdoinham) Kim Benjamin, Daniel Billings and Joanne
Reinhart; (from Harpswell) James Henderson, Elinor “Ellie” Multer and Joanne
Rogers; (from Topsham) Stephen Harris, Robert W. Hill and James Trusiani; and
(from Libson) Prudence “Prudy” Grant, Gina Mason, Martha Poliquin and Charles
Smith.
Also present were Superintendents J. Michael
Wilhelm (M.S.A.D. No. 75) and
Business Managers Ron Lavender (M.S.A.D. No. 75)
and Catherine Messmer (
Student representative Cam Bubar (
Donna Frisoli of
Harpswell Channel 14 TV was present to record this evening’s meeting.
The meeting was moderated and facilitated by Jay Bartner.
A. Call
to order
The meeting was called to order by Co-chair Martha
Poliquin at 6:30 p.m.
Mrs. Poliquin adjusted the agenda to reflect that
Item “F.1” will be placed immediately after Item E (before the committee
breakout).
B. Approval
of minutes of the October 10, 2007 RP meeting
It was noted that on Page 4, Item G, third
paragraph, the following should be added to the minutes:
“At the November 2008 general election new Board
elections will be held and will yield the following:
“Bowdoin …
“Bowdoinham …
“Harpswell …
“Topsham …
(Add)
one 2-year Director
two 1-year Directors”
It was moved by Mrs. Rogers, seconded by Mr.
Harris, and VOTED (unanimously, with Mr.
Smith and Ms. Mason exercising the one-seat/one vote provision of sharing one
position) to accept as amended the minutes of the October 10, 2007, meeting
of the RPC.
… Mr.
Trusiani arrived at 6:35 p.m.
C. Public
comments
No comments were heard.
D. Governance
Committee report and RPC vote on recommendations
It was moved by Mrs. Rogers and seconded by Mr.
Hill to recommend the following to the RPC for approval:
The
election of the RSU board will occur in conjunction with the November 2008
general election, anticipating a July 1, 2009 “start-up” of the new RSU and
will be conducted in accordance with the ordinances of the towns conducting the
election.
All
towns will stagger the initial terms of new Directors so that roughly one-third
of the RSU board is elected {correction noted 11-7-07) each year.
The
longer terms will be awarded to the candidate(s) with the highest number of
votes.
The
November 2008 election of new RSU Directors to staggered term lengths (at the
outset only) are as follows:
Bowd oin: one
3-year term
one 2-year
term
Bowdoinham: one 3-year term
one 2-year term
Harpswell: one 3-year term
one 2-year term
one 1-year term
Topsham: two 3-year terms
one 2-year term
two 1-year terms
(Continued from previous page)
one 2-year term
two 1-year terms
Ms. Multer suggested
clarifying language which would stipulate that “the longer terms will be
awarded within{correction noted 11-7-07} each town to the candidate(s) with the highest
number of votes.”
Ms. Poliquin asked about
the Law which allows the awarding of terms as stated above. Mr. Trusiani
clarified that this can be done as long as local municipalities running the
elections so state.
Mr. Lavan noted that the
Law states terms have to be three years after the first election (with the
staggered terms).
Superintendent Wilhelm pointed out that the RSU
Board will have much work to do and noted that if the RPC were to recommend
going to a March 2008 referendum, this would give the new Board a whole year to
work before the RSU becomes effective.
Mr. Harris agreed there will be more than enough
work to go around.
Ms. Poliquin suggested
that the Governance Committee could look into when the various towns hold
elections.
Superintendent Wilhelm said that the Commissioner
of Education has indicated the State’s willingness to pay for a special
election.
Mrs. Rogers would prefer to leave the timeline as
it is, stating that leaving it makes sense at the present time.
Mr. Billings asked for clarification on weighted
votes. Mrs. Rogers stated the assumption
was that when specifications on election of a new Board were laid out, census
numbers and vote weights were to be laid out.
Ms. Multer pointed out that it doesn’t lay out
when elections are to be held and asked if the suggestion is being made to
change it to a November election, to which Superintendent Wilhelm {correction noted 11-7-07} responded
affirmatively, with the qualifier that if the RPC is able to get its work done.
Ms. Poliquin restated
that the Governance Committee would be willing to revisit the setting of date
for election of the RSU Board. Mr. Hill
stated that if the Committee’s work is completed, the date can be changed.
Mr. Billings pointed out that a 17-member Board
would be easier to “sell,” as it would allow each community to have at least
two members.
Mrs. Totten sought
clarification on whether someone could serve on both Boards – the current Board
and the new RSU Board – which would both be functioning concurrently.
Mr. Bartner stated he
thinks this is correct. Ms. Poliquin requested that Mr. Bartner
obtain a definitive answer to this question.
Mr. Harris reminded the RPC membership of the many
sub-committees on the M.S.A.D. No. 75 Board, if there is any question on the
need for a 17-member RSU Board.
The motion made by Mrs. Rogers and seconded by Mr.
Hill (page 2) was VOTED (unanimously, with Mr. Smith and Ms. Mason exercising the
one-seat/one-vote provision of sharing one position).
E. Governance
Committee, task completion and new assignment
Mrs. Rogers believes that the Governance
Committee’s tasks have been completed, as nothing else remains on its list of
tasks. Mr. Henderson suggested writing
up something for the Town Clerks regarding the terms of the RSU.
Ms. Poliquin asked what
else the Governance Committee can do. Superintendent
Welsh suggested that part of the transition plan is to look at the Boards’
policies.
Mrs. Rogers asked what this task would be, to which
Superintendent Welsh responded “looking at how the RSU Board could
function.” Mrs. Rogers asked for validation
that it would be acceptable for the Governance Committee to do this. Mr. Barter reminded the RPC that what is
coming from the work of the Committees are recommendations to be taken to the
full RPC.
Mr. Hill does not want to disband the Governnance Committee if it’s going to be meeting during
the breakout.
Ms. Poliquin asked Mrs.
Rogers if the Governance Committee is willing to meet to discuss the policies,
and Mrs. Rogers stated that whatever the charge of the RPC is, the Governance
Committee will do.
Superintendent Wilhelm stated that in addressing
policies the sub-committee would look at the scope and powers of the RSU
Board. Mr. Bartner
stated that the Governance Committee could work on a list of challenges the RSU
Board will face.
Ms. Poliquin noted there
appears to be global agreement that if one committee finishes its work and
others have work still to be accomplished, it could assist other committees in
completion of its tasks.
F.1. Finance
Committee report and RPC vote on recommendations from October 17, 2007 meeting
It was moved by Mrs. Multer
and seconded by Mrs. Rogers that the RPC approve recommendations from the
October 17, 2007 meeting, as follows:
1. That
the new district (RSU) assume all of the existing debt
service obligations of
(a) From the point of view of keeping the
books, it will be much simpler. There
will be greatly increased work if it is necessary to keep track of what will be
two (and could become three) streams of debt (yours, mine and ours). It would also complicate and therefore
increase the costs of auditing.
(b) Handling debt service in this manner
provides a small advantage to
(c) This is consistent with our earlier
recommendation that the buildings for which the debt service was incurred
become property of the consolidated unit.
(d) The capital improvements reflected in the
debt service represent improvements to the buildings that will redound to the
benefit of the new unit. If these
improvements had not been made, the new unit would have to make them and incur
that debt service.
(e) If there is to be a successful
consolidation, it will be important to encourage all our citizens to think in
terms of a new, joint enterprise rather than in terms of “we” and “they.” Consolidating the debt service under the new
unit is one way to support such thinking.
2. That
the new district (RSU) assume all the lease-purchase
obligations of the consolidating units
See above
for rationale.
3. Unallocated Fund Balances &
Outstanding Liabilities
(a) Based on local ordinances,
(b) M.S.A.D. No. 75 will have a significant
fund balance ($2.09 million at the end of 2006), but there will be an unfunded
liability for summer salaries against that ($3.02 million for FY 2006). Pending the audit, that liability is
estimated to exceed the fund balance by about $500,000.
(c) By Law, fairness and common sense, that
deficit – whatever it may be at that time – will become the responsibility of
the towns of M.S.A.D. No. 75.
M.S.A.D. No. 75 Business Manager Ron
Lavender answered questions relative to a document he had prepared and which
Ms. Poliquin had distributed – Distribution of local debt service
applying the FY 07-08 cost-sharing formula.
Superintendent Wilhelm stated that no
new debt is anticipated to be incurred by M.S.A.D. No. 75.
Mr. Lavender made a correction to one
of the column headings on the part of the sheet Debt assumed by new RSU. Under the heading Total cost shift if debt assumed,
it should say Principal & Interest – not
Principal only.
Mr. Lavender cautioned that what is
being presented is a one-year estimate.
Mr. Henderson made a suggestion that
would make it easier to explain “estimated impact.”
Ms. Poliquin
asked the RPC if it wants to see the information on one piece of paper, pending
RPC approval. Mr. Lavender reminded the
RPC that if estimates are made beyond one year, the figures will go over what
is being estimated.
Ms. Multer
stated that the Financial Committee is willing to put together a schedule to
help the public better understand it.
She further assured Mr. Henderson that (with Mr. Lavender’s help) the
Committee would be obligated to spell out the impact for the individual
towns.
Mr. Trusiani
reiterated that it’s important for all to understand what the local debt
service is. He reminded the RPC that
capital improvements are improvements that the RSU won’t have to make. He ended by saying that the RPC should be
looking at these together, and that at the “end of the day,” the RPC needs to
be able to explain it to the public.
The motion made by Ms. Multer and seconded by Mrs. Rogers was VOTED (unanimously, with Mr. Smith and Ms. Mason exercising the
one-seat/one-vote provision of sharing one position).
Discussion was held on the
recommendation that the RSU assume all the lease-purchase obligations of the
consolidating units.
In response to Mr. Lavan’s question, Ms. Multer
stated that the lease-purchase obligations of M.S.A.D. No. 75 are mostly
copiers, computers and equipment at the bus garage.
It was moved by Ms. Multer, seconded by Mrs. Rogers, and VOTED (unanimously, with Mr. Smith and Ms. Mason exercising the
one-seat/one-vote provision of sharing one position) that the new district
(RSU) assume all the-lease purchase obligations of the consolidating units.
F. Sub-committee
breakout
At 7:25 p.m. the sub-committees entered break-out
session and were asked to return at 8:15 p.m. for presentation of reports.
Governance
Committee: Mrs.
Rogers reported that, as suggested earlier, the Committee will look at
policies, and also make a recommendation regarding essential sub-committees the
RSU Board will need.
She also reported that Superintendent Wilhelm has
been requested to develop a timeline for election of the new Board. She stated that discussion had yielded the
conclusion that after the June 2008 referendum, an election of new Board
members could be held in September. It
had been agreed that holding an election at the same time the budget referendum
is held is not a good idea.
Financial
Committee: Ms. Multer hopes to have at the next meeting a listing and
amounts in them of other types of school funds, i.e. student activity accounts
and scholarship funds. She stated that
some of these would stay with the school and some would go to the RSU.
Employees
& Bargaining: Mr. Harris
reported that the Committee had been presented a list of M.S.A.D. No. 75
employees and positions. The Committee
discussed a recommended schedule for negotiating successor contracts.
Ms. Benjamin reported that the negotiated agreement
with teachers expires in
The agreement with administrators expires in 2008
in both
Superintendent Wilhelm asked what happens if a
union doesn’t want to follow the recommendation of this Committee.
Ms. Grant is aware that a joint meeting of the teachers representatives from
Mr. Harris reported that the Commissioner has
indicted that M.S.A.D. No. 75 appears to have met the requirement of a 5%
reduction in special education costs. He
also stated that savings related purchasing route software and sharing
maintenance costs should equate to 5%.
He also acknowledged the need for sensitivity, since the situation is
fraught with discomfort for those employees to be displaced.
Mrs. Totten clarified
that the special education savings is due to decreased population and
identification at the state level.
Ms. Poliquin asked if the
RPC wants to take action tonight on the recommendation regarding re-negotiation
of contracts. Mr. Billings prefers to
see the recommendations in writing before voting on them. Mr. Hill added that it would be beneficial to
have conversations with the bargaining units.
Ms. Grant assured the RPC that the UniServ
representative is “on top” of the situation and will be at the joint meeting of
the two teacher bargaining units. Mr.
Hill concluded that he would look to the Superintendents to take the proposals
to their bargaining units.
H. Wrap-up
and schedule of meetings
The next meeting of the full RPC will be held at
6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, in Rooms 1402-3 of
No
sub-committee meetings are scheduled before then.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca A. Brillant
Recorder
/bb/minutesRPC102407
Minutes corrected by
RPC at its November 7, 2007, meeting