10/25 -


Durham, Freeport, & Pownal
Reorganization Planning Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2007
Durham Elementary School~Durham

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: Shannon Welsh, Superintendent of Schools, Durham; Joe Feeney, Superintendent/Principal, Pownal
Also Present: Bob Kautz, Facilitator; Diane Boucher; Business Manager; Cathy Messmer, Business Manager, Durham; Freeport/Pownal and 6 members of the public
Not Present: Elaine Tomaszewski, Superintendent of Schools, Freeport

• The meeting was called to order by Amber Snell, Tri-Chair at 7pm.
• It was explained that Bob Kautz, Facilitator was detained and would be coming late to the meeting. Shannon Welsh explained that our broadcast was live in Durham and being recorded on DVD for review by others. The suggestion from Mr. Kautz was that the agenda be revised and members break into subcommittees. Ms. Welsh recommended a time frame of 45 minutes and that the whole committee would reconvene at 7:50pm.

Finance, Property, and Cost Savings Subcommittee: Members: Paul Schumann, Cliff Ruprecht, Allan Purinton and Fred Palmer.
Cliff Ruprecht submitted the following notes as scribe:
The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with all members present. Ms. Boucher and Ms. Messmer were present in an advisory capacity. Also present were two members of the public. A preliminary schedule of assets and liabilities for each of the three units, prepared by Ms. Messmer, Ms. Boucher and Mr. Feeney, was circulated. An extensive discussion was held concerning audit and accounting practices in the three units, in an effort to understand the items on the schedule on an apples-to-apples basis and to make a preliminary identification of potential issues of consolidation of assets and liabilities that may require special attention. Questions posed from the public were answered. It was recognized that the preliminary information is incomplete and that some degree of further detail will be required by the subcommittee on each unit's assets and liabilities. A general discussion was held concerning the transition from initial formation of the RSU to the point in time when programs are fully blended in the RSU and various possibilities for addressing cost-sharing during the transition. Mr. Kautz joined the meeting briefly. The subcommittee discussed the need for a clearer understanding of each unit's rights and ownership of school buildings within the respective towns, and a high-level discussion ensued regarding how the costs and benefits of ownership of such buildings might be allocated within the RSU and between the RSU and the member towns. The subcommittee recognized that it will need to present an estimate of the penalty each town would incur in the first year if it opted not to consolidate; preliminary estimates were discussed, with agreement that Ms. Boucher and Ms. Messmer would provide the subcommittee with more refined estimates at a future time. A discussion was held concerning how the subcommittee would meet its charge to formulate an estimate of net costs or savings, for inclusion in the Reorganization Plan. There was general agreement that such an estimate will be only an estimate and will require the exercise of judgment regarding future conditions that will remain unknown even at the time the Plan is finalized. The subcommittee recognized that it will require a common presentation of the three units' budgets as a point of departure for developing a pro forma for the RSU that can be used for estimating costs or savings. This is a priority item for the subcommittee, and Ms. Boucher and Ms. Messmer agreed to make best efforts to provide such a presentation as soon as practicable. Hope was expressed that such a common presentation could be ready for the next subcommittee meeting, and it was recognized that, with or without such materials, the subcommittee would take up at its next meeting a more detailed discussion of possible approaches to the transition issues identified at this meeting. The issue of transition timing was recognized to have potential impact on the work of all three subcommittees. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. to rejoin the Committee as a whole.
Governance and Transition Subcommittee:
Due to technical difficulties in email, scribe will resubmit notes and they will be added to minutes before emailing to entire committee

Employment and Collective Bargaining/Other Subcommittee: Members: Jen Kaplan, Bill Crain, Amber Snell, Rick White and Marge Migliaccio. Shannon Welsh also joined meeting
Jen Kaplan submitted the following notes as scribe:
1. Our charge, to fact find first, and then make contractual recommendations second.
2. First order, Cathy Messmer and Diane Boucher will put together a list of lease-purchase agreements. We will analyze and then make recommendations. We could also get them to combine contractual agreements. All information was handed to Shannon for copy and organization.
3. Discussion regarding Administration costs. These costs do include supplies, business center, etc. Shannon diagramed how Durham Central Office works.
4. Shannon will compile a list of positions, costs, hours, and job responsibilities. Also process/system recommendations.
5. Many questions about what falls under our subcommittee charge and what will fall under the Finance Subcommittee.
6. Shannon recommended that we spend our time debating school choice issues while we wait to get information from business offices. Durham felt that the Brunswick choice may be a deal breaker. We will continue to discuss this next week.
• The subcommittees took more time then what was first agreed to finish up discussions. Whole committee reconvene at 8:25pm with Bob Kautz facilitating.
• Minutes were reviewed. John Gleason made the correction on the second page which was noted. Committee accepted the corrected minutes.
• Mr. Kautz reviewed an email sent by Julie Coleman. It was agreed that all 3 questions would be discussed and reviewed further by their respective subcommittees.
• The committee agreed that the issue of school choice would be discussed within the Employee/Collective Bargaining subcommittee but may also cross over within the Governance and Finance Subcommittee.
• Mr. Kautz explained that under present law school choice will preserved and made available. There is no mechanism at this point to end school choice. There are bills that are being presented but nothing in the legislature.
• The Employee/Collective Bargaining Subcommittee also agreed to make recommendations to the entire committee after their discussion at the next meeting. It would then be an open discussion within the entire committee.
• Durham contingents would like to have a consensus of the Freeport contingents if the school choice debate is a financial issue or just the issue of wanting all Durham students to attend the RSU High School. Consensus with the Freeport contingents was the community has both views on the issue of Durham students reserving the right of school choice. Pownal contingents feel this issue should not be considered a “deal breaker” and that some solution could come to this issue once discussed within the committee.
• Mr. Kautz asked for any further new views on this discussion.
• Public comments were then given. A member of the Town Council in Freeport explained that Durham could vote not to give their students school choice but this must be accomplished before the first day of the proposed RSU. Durham contingents explained that if this was a cost issue that the Durham community would be willing to absorb the cost of their students attending different schools than in the RSU.
• A Freeport community member explained that some of the views within the Freeport community were that this was a philosophical issue. An issue more about equity than cost. A hypothetical explanation was given that if the Freeport High School was not performing up to expected standards Durham students would be allowed to choose to find educating their students elsewhere and Freeport students would not be able to choose another school.
• Another Freeport community member explained the benefits of all Durham students attending the Freeport High School and that it would offer the school more classes and give more opportunities to the school. School choice would not be fair to all students.
• Durham contingents wonder that if they decide if they have a referendum for ending school choice and it fails how would this impact the RPC.
• A Freeport community member suggested it was unfair to allow just the subcommittee to make recommendations and that it should be discussed openly with the entire committee.
• Tri-Chair Paul Schumann stated that the subcommittees were the appropriate place to have this discussion and that all communities were represented within the subcommittee structure.
• Bill Crain stated the public speaker made a valid point and that it was a fundamental policy decision. Freeport contingents made the decision that school choice was not a valid option and Durham contingents felt this option should stay status quo for their students. The discussion needs to be on the table for the entire committee in the very near future.
• Rick White stated the committee should not overreact; that conversations were representative of certain groups and the feelings stated were not in respect of whole communities and that a solution could be found. His recommendation was that the best efforts of the RPC should be how the RSU should be represented.
• Mr. Kautz redirected that the discussion of school choice will be had within the Employee/Collective Bargaining subcommittee as agreed to.
• Fred Palmer questioned whether or not there would be a discussion with the entire committee and Mr. Kautz explained that the committee had made the decision to allow the subcommittee to have the school choice discussion and their recommendations would then be presented to the entire committee for open discussion. It was agreed to have this discussion after the subcommittee breakout at the next meeting.
• John Gleason then presented the structure of the Education Subcommittee which would address certain needs that may not necessarily be represented by other subcommittees. This would include broader participation within the Durham and Pownal communities which have limited involvement within the High School structure. This subcommittee would also include more members of the communities.
• It was agreed within the committee that each community would be allotted 5 positions on this subcommittee and it would be up to each community how to they would solicit and select membership for this committee and that they may choose participants as to their satisfaction. It was also agreed that the leadership of this subcommittee must be able to facilitate in a manner that is equal and representative to the charge at hand.
• There was a discussion regarding public involvement within the subcommittee structure. It was presented that at present time public may attend subcommittee meetings as well as entire committees and they are able to verbalize questions and comments within each meeting. The consensus with the committee is that the structures should be left as is allowing the public to verbalize during subcommittee meetings however it would be up to each subcommittee chair to moderate that involvement. This was left as a working decision that could have changes made to it.
• Mr. Kautz also reiteratied that the RPC could not plan on the reduction of staff from communities. Any employees under collective bargaining agreements would stay within that structure. All “at will” positions could be eliminated up to the day before the RPC becomes an RSU. The committee asked for clarifications on employment issues for the next meeting.
• Meeting was adjourned at 9:05pm.


Respectfully submitted by S. Brewer 10-12-2007