SALEM – Doubts, dreams and discussion marked Thursday evening’s public hearing, which focused on a plan that would create a joint administration with MSAD 74.
MSAD 58 voters will cast their ballots on the plan on March 8.
School board directors and members of the public spent more than two hours on the proposal, which would create a single central office, shared by MSAD 58 and MSAD 74. The office would include a superintendent, business office and special education administration, which would provide support for both districts. Immediate, projected savings for MSAD 58 include half a superintendent’s position as well as some savings garnered through the consolidation of the two districts’ business offices. MSAD 58 and MSAD 74 already share a special eduction director.
A 10-director board, five from each district, would govern and set budgets for the AOS.
No schools, students, teachers or bus routes would be directly affected by the consolidation. The arrangement, known as an Alternate Organizational Structure or AOS, would only impact the aforementioned administrative positions. Some directors have spoken in favor of future educational programming collaboration between MSAD 58 and MSAD 74, but that is not written into the plan.
The most significant financial gain would be in escaping the state’s consolidation non-compliance penalty, roughly $130,000 for MSAD 58 this year.
Those savings are not guaranteed; the district missed a Jan. 31 deadline to avoid the penalty, although Superintendent Quenten Clark said other districts elsewhere in the state have missed the deadline and successfully avoided the penalty in the past. Given the new administration in Augusta, the future of those penalties remains in doubt.
The biggest concerns raised at the public hearing, and at past meetings, revolve around the general uncertainty surrounding the future of the consolidation law and MSAD 58. Clark is leaving this year, and several residents and directors have expressed concerns about a superintendent splitting his or her time between MSAD 58 and MSAD 74. If additional help was required, such as an assistant superintendent, the limited savings would rapidly disappear.
Selectman John Calloway of Avon, was concerned with what would happen when issues arose within the district. He said the potential savings didn’t make up for the risk, calling the proposal “penny-wise and pound foolish.”
“One superintendent, covering that wide an area, is fine,” Galloway said. “As long as nothing goes wrong.”
“Who becomes the superintendent is going to be critical for this thing,” Clark said.
Other residents had questions regarding whether the district could back out of the agreement down the road. Again the answers were vague; the AOS contract itself is clear that the district can vote to disengage from the arrangement, but Clark, who called backing out “darn difficult,” said state law mandated a new partner. However, it is also unclear what the state could do to MSAD 58 other than levy the non-compliance penalty, which the district already pays.
MSAD 58 Director Gerald “Mike” Pond of Strong, who has voted against the plan in recent board votes, said there was “too much up in the air” for him to support it. Director Jane Thorndike of Phillips, agreed.
“I’m not dead set against the AOS, people,” she said, “but I feel rushed.”
Other directors have endorsed the plan as a necessary step forward for a district struggling with declining enrollment, rising valuation and less state subsidy money every year. Director Sue Fotter of Eustis, recounted a series of interviews she conducted with administrators and teachers who went through an AOS, which were overwhelmingly positive. The board’s chair, Director Judy Dill of Kingfield, said she hoped the bare-bones plan would lead to future collaborative efforts between MSAD 58 and MSAD 74.
At least one resident said she was frustrated by the board’s mixed opinions. Dill said the latest vote on the issue had six directors in favor and three in opposition.
The AOS plan, approved or not, represents a small portion of the discussion regarding the district’s future. Directors are considering a variety of internal reorganization plans, as declining enrollment numbers force the slashing of programs throughout the five schools in the district.
“This is not going to save the world,” Clark said,
Resident Jack McKee of Kingfield, told directors and residents they should support the AOS, as the first of a series of difficult decisions the district was going to have to make.
“We are at a point right now, folks,” McKee said, “where we’re going to have to sacrifice, one way or another.”
He went on to note that MSAD 74, which he wryly called “the other side of the world,” had a lot in common with MSAD 58, and that the potential for future collaboration was worth the risk.
The vote is March 8 in the MSAD 58 towns. MSAD 74 votes on March 5, and both districts (but not each, individual town) must approve the plan to proceed.
Baldacci has left the building. Why does his ignorance have to continue to haunt us? Seems everyone’s biggest concern is over $130K penalty. Common sense is back in control; there are elected officials who will listen to constituents now.
I agree with Captain Planet- rushing it at this point in time would really be foolish. Not to mention there will be NO SAVINGS- the president of the teacher’s union said publicly at that meeting that the goal would be to spend any potential savings on hiring more teachers at Mt. Abram High School. Less administrative oversight, Less local control, for more money. Bad deal.
Its to bad that ringer came away from the public hearing with that impression. In matter of fact the Board members (who develop the budget not the president of the teacher’s union) indicated that they saw the savings as a way to avoid further cuts in educational programs not to add new staff. Of course as always the final vote on the budget will be the citizens.
Also it’s strange that Ringer refers to a yes vote as rushing things. The issue of consolidation has been on the table since 2009. Three years of debating the general issue is far from rushing into something. The current partnership proposal began with a formal invitation from then School Board chair Mike Pond to the SAD 74 board in April of 2010. It will be almost a year from that formal invitation to our vote on March 8th. That also seems far from rushing things.
The “NO SAVINGS” assertion just doesn’t stand up to the facts or common sense. Starting last spring the two districts agreed to try out the shared administrative plan with the Special Education Director. The result is that our programs continue to function great (due to the highly competent person in the job and all the great staff working with her), and we receive $49,000 in payment from SAD 74. Those are real dollars that mean less cut programs to our kids or lower taxes for our citizens. There is no reason to believe the same can’t be done with the Superintendent position (as the plan calls for). This would save us another $50,000.
That doesn’t even consider the possibility of avoiding the $131,000 penalty we’re paying this year. And yes I know there is no guarantee of avoiding that penalty but the reason we might have another year is because of the “go slow, foot dragging” crowd delaying the process and the vote to after Jan 31.
I understand that facts ,experience and common sense are not likely to change Ringers mind. But I’m counting on the rest of the citizens of our town’s to look beyond fear and put the interests of the kids and the taxpayers first. It’s time we took a lesson from the old time ways when neighbors pulled together in hard times working together and supporting each other. We may not know the folks over in SAD 74 very well yet but as another of my mother’s sayings had it, there just friends we don’t know yet.
I say lets vote this AOS down and wait. This sounds like a shotgun wedding to me.
Joining an AOS will absolutely save SAD 58 money. It will start with saving over $130,000 in penalty fees for this year by bringing us into compliance with state law. It may save also save us from having to pay last year;s penalty charge; that is still to be be determined. It will certainly save us from paying future penalty charges which will accrue every year we continue to be noncompliant. It will also save us one half of our superintendent’s salary each year. (Why the sudden fear of sharing a superintendent? Most people are happy whenever overhead administrative costs are cut, whether in a shcool or any business. It is certainly possible for one human to run tow school districts; it is already being successfully done by other AOS’S formed in the state.) In addition, joining an AOS will save us money ordering bulk supplies like paper and cafeteria food etc. Also bussing costs would be shared in some sitiuations.
Sue Fotter, SAD 58 board member, should be commended for doing her homework. Every administrative personnel she plled whose school had joined an AOS expressed satisfation with the system. The two reasons that stand out are savings and no changes int he individual schools (we keep our board, they keep theirs, we keep our kids in our schools, they keep theirs in their school.) All change is at the administrative level.
There is no way taking action about this issue can remotely be called “jumping the gun”. This has been an issue for several years. No one likes change, many fear it, but joining an AOS should not be a cause of fear. It saves us money, brings us into compliance with state law, we retain control of our schools, and nothing changes for our kids. What more are we waiting for? Another $130,000 penalty fee, fewer joices as schools join together and no longer are interested in our partnership, and the right to pay the full superintendant’s salary?
Just because we would join an AOS doesn’t mean that we would stop looking for ways to save SAD 58 taxpayers money. Closing the Mt. Abram money pit would be a good way to accomplish that. We should bring the high schools back to their individual towns. Not only would that save money, but maybe bring back some hometown pride.
yes, Rodney, the fact remains that we still have to deal with the question of what to do about our inability to support our high school, and the dropping enrollment. Joining an AOS is a completely separate issue. I would like to be in compliance with Maine law—our kids should see us set a good example by being good law abiding citizens. Voters need to understand that we need to move forward. The time for dragging our feet out of fear has long passed. I suggest getting this issue under our belt, plugging the obvious and easy to fix hole that is draining our resources, then focusing on what to do next. Personally I cringe every time I read the articles and see the progress RSU 9 is making. My child could have been part of that awesome system had we not been fearful. She would like to be enrolled in their great Tech program and there are only 3 spots open for Mt. Abram students! That school system is forging ahead because they jumped on the train when the time was right. Our system is going to miss out on any options if this keeps up.
Some of us LIKE what we have at Mt. Abram. Lori you can get a superintendents agreement and have your child attend RSU/SAD 9. Personally I like what we have. If we had school voucher system, then by all means you have an even more of a choice. I have worked in MANY school systems and have found that what we have in MSAD 58 is very special and Mt Abram is a special place. AOS to save $190,000? We are giving up alot. I will be voting no.
I also like Mt. Abram. I just wish it had more offerings to choose from. I do not intend to bash Mt. Abram, all my children have done well in college after attending it. I must also apologize for my spelling errors in my first letter. I type pretty “blind” with this broken neck:) Hopefully everyone can lighten up. I do not see this issue as terrifically emotional. My goal is to get some information out there and get the discussion started. I am glad people are responding! I want to thank you all for not condemning my spelling errors; Mt. Abram taught me better!
Please explain what exactly we are giving up besides administrative costs?