Last week the Great Salt Bay (GSB), Bristol and South Bristol school boards held public hearings before their regular meetings as part of the process required by the recently enacted legislation. The hearings gave parents, teachers, and community members an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed Alternative Organization Structure (AOS).
The AOS developed by the local Regional Planning Committee (RPC) is called the Central Lincoln County School System (CLCSS). It would include Damariscotta, Newcastle, Bristol, South Bristol, Nobleboro, Jefferson, Boothbay, East Boothbay, Edgecomb, and Southport.
The Maine Legislature passed the original school consolidation law in 2007, and revised it in April 2008. The law requires each district to form a Regional School Unit (RSU) or an AOS, and voters in each town to approve the plan.
All school districts in the state of Maine are required to consolidate transportation, food, and special education services, and provide a central office for each district. The law states that consolidation must be completed by July 1, according to the legislature’s website (www.maine.gov/legis).
The Bristol school board meeting originally scheduled for Jan. 7, had to be rescheduled, because of inclement weather. David Howell, Chairman of the Board said approximately 15 people attended the meeting Jan. 13.
Howell was part of the Regional Planning Committee that developed the AOS. “When this process began it was very frustrating,” he said. “There were not a lot of answers to our questions, and we had a lot of difficulty in getting answers. The legislation is vague. Everyone on the committee had reservations.”
If an AOS or RSU was not formed, Union 74 would be forced to maintain their own central office. A number of people expressed acceptance of the AOS plan versus the alternatives, or facing penalties for non-compliance, according to Howell.
“There should be no impact on the students or teachers with this AOS,” he said. “The school boards retain control over their school administrators, pupils, and teachers. By 2016, all school contracts are supposed to be consistent with one another, but consistent does not mean identical.”
A negative of the RSU format is that it required a single contract, Howell said. That was another sticking point for the planning committee in developing a consolidation plan before the law was revised.
The RPC actually stopped meeting for a few months, while waiting for clarification from the legislature and the Dept. of Education, Howell said. When legislation allowing the development of an AOS passed, it helped the committee get back on track.
Howell said he is unsure about voter turnout next Tuesday. “I have no idea about the turnout for the Jan. 27 vote, but I suspect it will be a small turnout,” said Howell. “I hope lots of people are concerned about this, and make their opinions known.”
Chairman of the GSB School Board, Jim Cosgrove, said approximately 20 people attended the public hearing held Jan. 14. The crowd was varied and included active community members, parents and teachers; no one issue dominated the discussion.
Cosgrove illustrated differences between the RSU system first proposed, and the Alternative Organization Structure allowed by the revision to the law.
“The RSU would have eliminated the local school boards,” he said. “This AOS has a larger board to oversee the entire AOS, and smaller local boards for each of the schools.”
Cosgrove said the impression he got from residents at the GSB meeting was that a lot of people like the current level of local control over the schools. Impacts on students and teachers are expected to be minimal with the current reorganization plan.
With the RSU plan, the school district would have owned the real estate where each school is located. With this AOS, each school will retain ownership of their own property, according to Cosgrove.
“My opinion is that the idea behind school reorganization was to close the smaller schools, because they’re less efficient,” he said. “What they are overlooking is that these schools are the social center of the towns. If we close those schools there will be no gathering meeting or place, no plays, concerts, and games. Our small towns will wither.”
The AOS offers greater protection for small towns like South Bristol and Southport, versus the RSU plan, Cosgrove said.
He worries that attendance for the Jan. 27 vote will be poor due to the fact there is only one question on the ballot. Cosgrove was disappointed with the way the governor conceived and implemented the consolidation process.
“In the long run this is a structure that is beneficial, but the changes could have been instituted a better way by the state,” said Cosgrove. “Baldacci used a meat cleaver, when he could have used a scalpel.”
Both Cosgrove and Howell agreed the schools don’t expect to realize any savings in the first year, but estimates suggest going forward they will save approximately $75,000 annually.
As part of their regular meetings, both boards heard budget presentations for next school year by Union 74 Superintendent Bob Bouchard. Funding the new AOS central office adds one additional step to the budget process, he said.
“The budget process for the AOS is separate from the regular school budget,” he said. “The AOS board must devise a budget for the central office. It must be approved by voters at a district meeting, much like CSD budget meeting in the spring.”
A ballot vote is required for central office budget approval, Bouchard said. Each town is assessed a piece of that budget.
Education budgets across the state have taken a significant hit this year due to reductions in subsidy levels. Already Union 74 has adjusted all budgets this year to accommodate those state subsidy cuts, according to Bouchard.
In this month’s GSB school newsletter, Principal Jeff Boston described cuts necessary this year. GSB has already cut more than $17,000 from their budget this year due to subsidy reductions, he said.
“To cover our costs for this budgetary year, the reductions are as follows,” said Boston. “$3500 from the regular education supply line, $2500 from the athletic line, $2000 from the computer software line, $317 from the textbook line, and $8915 from the heating fuel.”
