10/18 -


Durham, Freeport, & Pownal
Reorganization Planning Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2007
Pownal Elementary School~Pownal

Members Present: Amber Snell, Wesley Bennett, Allan Purinton, John Gleason, Fred Palmer, Marge Migliaccio, Rick White, Nelson Larkins, Paul Schumann, Jennifer Kaplan, William Crain, Tim Giddinge, Sherry Dietrich, Cliff Ruprecht
Advisors Present: Elaine Tomaszewski, Superintendent of Schools, Freeport; Joe Feeney, Superintendent/Principal, Pownal
Also Present: Bob Kautz, Facilitator; Jim Rier, Department of Education; Diane Boucher; Business Manager; Freeport/Pownal and 5 members of the public
Not Present: Shannon Welsh, Superintendent of Schools, Durham; Cathy Messmer, Business Manager, Durham

• The meeting was called to order by Mr. Bob Kautz, Facilitator, at 7pm.
• Mr. Kautz explained that Jim Rier from the Department of Education would be joining the meeting to discuss the financial template.
• The agenda was reviewed.
• Some housekeeping issues regarding corrections to contact information were addressed by Sybill Brewer, RPC Secretary.
• The previous meeting minutes were reviewed and discussed. The committee was in consensus that the minutes were accurate.
• Questions from the previous meeting were addressed. The question of how the Maine School Management Association (MSMA) would address some of the legality issues was discussed. Mr. Kautz spoke with Dale Douglass at MSMA and he had stated that the MSMA has no plans to introduce legislation itself, but they would possibly make amendments to legislation introduced by other parties. Mr. Douglass felt there would be legislation dealing with various issues within the alignments of different school units. The MSMA would also advocate for changes in the current law that may allow municipal officials to have line item veto within school budgets rather than bottom line approval. There was discussion that the Maine Municipal Association would propose legislation in regards to the commitment of taxes within communities. Elaine Tomaszewski received an email in regards to a bill in the process of being introduced to support cost shift fairness within aligning communities. The consensus of the committee was there would be various discussions regarding the legality of communities aligning their school units.
• Jim Rier from the Department of Education was introduced. He concurred there would be various bills introduced to the State of Maine regarding the alignment of school units and that the Department of Education is trying to address concerns.
• It was confirmed by Mr. Kautz that if an RSU submitted their plan on the December 1, 2007 deadline but had the referendum after the proposed January 15, 2008 date they would still be able to be considered an RSU on July 1, 2008 as long as the referendum had passed, the school committee selected, and budget passed.
• It was also confirmed that if a plan was submitted after the December 1, 2007 deadline and the referendum was held and passed before the June 10th referendum deadline they would still be able to be considered an RSU on July 1, 2008 as long as the school committee was selected and budget passed.
• It was confirmed the state would pay for other referendum dates besides the January 15th date with the exception of the dates of June 10th and Nov. 4th.
• It was reiterated that every School Administrative Unit (SAU) must have a plan submitted to the State by December 1, 2007 or there would be penalties. There was no confirmation of what those penalties might be.
• Public questions from the previous meeting were addressed. It was explained that only one plan could be submitted to the state on Dec. 1st. Multiple plans would not be accepted.
• The latest date for a referendum under law would be November 4, 2008.
• It was also confirmed that there would be incentives for units who were established by the school year of 2009, however they have not officially been defined.
• There was a question regarding the line item veto bill introduced in legislation only being for one year. Jim Rier explained that the process is different in each community on how budgets are approved and that with the school alignments all budgets would be approved in the same manner with 11 lines of expenditures and 4 lines of revenue articles. The process would change in many communities once school units begin.
• The Tri-Chairs were appointed after caucus with their community members of the committee. Amber Snell from Durham, John Gleason from Freeport, and Paul Schumann from Pownal will Tri-Chair the RPC.
• Jim Rier presented the Financial Template for the committee to review. It was also offered to the public.
• Elaine Tomaszewski also added that the public could have copies of all other documents except for the Regionalization Plan workbook which could be purchased through the Law Firm of Drummond/Woodsum for a price of $12.
• Jim Rier explained that the financial template was a current snap shot of each community’s budget to give an idea of what a budget would look like if the communities were combined. The assumption would be that all items would be the same as they are at this moment not future years.
• The question of future debt being assigned to the new school unit and the example of Durham’s intention for building a new school was used as an example. Mr. Rier explained that any debt that happens in the future is the responsibility of the newly formed RSU. It is up to the RSU how that debt would be assigned to the budget and that budgets differ in every community. It was explained that Durham’s referendum for the new building would be in November and that the total debt would be decided at that time. Durham has three different pieces to the building referendum and total debt would be decided once each proposal was voted on.
• Calculations were explained in regards to the commitment of funds on the financial template. It was explained there was a miscalculation within Durham’s amount of allocation for the support of school lunches but that it would be corrected.
• Discussion of the impact to each community ensued and the consensus of the committee was that the financial template does not predict future year’s budgets.
• Mr. Rier made the suggestion that instead of using “carry over” to support the next year’s budget that the newly structured RSU should consider creating an expenditure driven budget by reviewing actual spending throughout each school unit. The consensus of the committee was that the RPC has the flexibility to have discussions regarding their financial and debt contributions and how to distribute budgetary amounts.
• The question was asked of whether or not there would be a financial template reflecting future financial attributes and Mr. Rier explained predictions are difficult but the Department of Education will help communities work with what is current and provide them with information to help improve and find more efficient operating procedures.
• Jim Rier was asked to stay and meet with the Finance Subcommittee.
• Mr. Kautz reviewed the distribution of committee members within each respective subcommittee for equality. The consensus of the committee was no adjustments to the committee were necessary.
• It was brought to Mr. Kautz attention that Public Involvement on the agenda was not addressed. The suggestion was made that in addition to taking public questions and addressing them at future meetings there would be a 10 minute Public Question/Comment on each meetings agenda scheduled before the committee broke into subcommittees. The committee was in agreement to include this procedure.
• Mr. Kautz reminded the committee that he was the Facilitator and if the committee felt uncomfortable with any practices they could address them and make any adjustments necessary.
• Each subcommittee was directed to select a Chair, Scribe and Reporter. Subcommittees were able to meet for 20 minutes. The scribe from each committee would submit notes from their meetings to the RPC Secretary for record.
Finance, Property, and Cost Savings Subcommittee: Members: Paul Schumann, Cliff Ruprecht, Allan Purinton and Fred Palmer. Advisors Present: Elaine Tomaszewski, Diane Boucher and Bob Kautz. Cliff Ruprecht submitted the following notes as scribe: The meeting convened at 8:35 p.m. with all members present. Ms. Tomaszewski and Ms. Boucher were in attendance in an advisory capacity, as was Jim Rier, Maine Department of Education. Also present was one member of the public. The members agreed that e-mail communications between members relating to subcommittee work would be cc'd to all members. A brief discussion was held concerning each member's background. Mr. Purinton was then elected Chair and Reporter for the subcommittee and Mr. Ruprecht was elected as Scribe. Further discussion was held with Mr. Rier regarding the Financial Template that he had presented earlier to the Committee as a whole and regarding the issue of developing a reliable projection of EPS for the prospective RSU. A preliminary, general discussion was held regarding how to form a common budget and projected expenses and revenues, with no decisions being taken. The members agreed that it is not too early for each community to develop schedules of assets and liabilities to be used by the subcommittee, and discussion was held regarding the initial level of detail for such schedules. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to rejoin the meeting of the Committee as a whole.
Governance and Transition Subcommittee: Members: Tim Giddinge, Sherry Dietrich, Wes Bennett, John Gleason and Nelson Larkins. Advisor Present: Joe Feeney. Sherry Dietrich submitted the following notes as scribe:
Business attended to:
1. Chair selected: Nelson Larkins
2. Scribe: Sherry Dietrich agreed for this meeting. Suggested alternating scribe job. Tim Giddinge will look into finding a volunteer to scribe for the future.
3. For the next meeting on October 17 members are to familiarize themselves with the "Reorganization Plan" document prepared by Drummond and Woodsum with special emphasis on Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 13A, 13C, 13 F. Also note any sections not mentioned here that might relate to our charge under Governance, etc.
4. Members agreed our subcommittee should build a few minutes into each one of our meetings for any public comment. It was agreed a Public Comment section would be placed somewhere at the beginning of our agenda. Possibly ten minutes

Employment and Collective Bargaining/Other Subcommittee: Members: Jen Kaplan, Bill Crain, Amber Snell, Rick White and Marge Migliaccio. Bob Kautz also joined meeting
Jen Kaplan submitted the following notes as scribe:
1. Jen Kaplan, Scribe; Marge Migliaccio, Chairperson; rotating reporter.
2. Familiarization of page numbers to assignments in Regionalization Plan.
3. Suggestion by Bob Kautz to collect all contracts of employees from each district from each Superintendent. Marge would collect Freeport’s, Amber would collect Durham’s, and Jen would collect Pownal’s. This would also include individuals who are employed but not contracted.
4. For plans to reorganize administration, transportation, etc. Budget information would be needed from Business Managers at each community.
The next meeting it was agreed to review contracts and perhaps compare the 3 budget items given time.
• The committee reconvened together. Mr. Kautz explained that John Gleason had the suggestion of creating an Education Subcommittee and asked Mr. Gleason to submit a proposal for the subcommittee for review. It would be discussed at the next meeting.
• Mr. Kautz also asked the committee to caucus with their respective community members regarding the public’s involvement within the subcommittee structures. It was proposed to be discussed at the next meeting and will be on the agenda.
• The communication plan was discussed and asked of each community to make information available on their respective community websites, discussions at public meetings, and videotaping available on local community channels. The question of whether or not it would be appropriate for public forums before the required forums. It would be up to the committee to decide and further discussion on communications would be in the agenda.
• It was suggested that any questions from the RPC be directed to either the Superintendents or Mr. Kautz. The consensus was that all questions would be directed to Mr. Kautz however, questions dealing with contractual obligations should be directed to the Superintendents.
• Meeting was adjourned at 9:07pm


Respectfully submitted by S. Brewer 10-12-2007; corrected 10.17.2007