Arundel School Board says ‘Yes’

Editor:

[The following is an open letter to Arundel residents from the Arundel School Board]

On Nov. 4, you will be asked to vote on the School Consolidation plan, put together by board members and citizen representatives from Arundel, Kennebunk, and Kennebunkport. If both school districts vote “Yes” to consolidate, the RSU will begin operation on July 1, 2009. If either of the two school districts votes “No” to consolidate, then we will try to determine what in the plan needs to be adjusted in order to gain a “Yes” vote by January 30, 2009. If by January 30, 2009, we have not passed a plan to consolidate, then the state will immediately penalize the Arundel School District, in the way of reduced state aid to education, as well as an increase in the mil rate by 2 percent annually. Based on the 2008-2009-school budget, the first year penalty is an estimated minimum of $120,000. This penalty will continue to increase year after year.

Approximately 18 to 20 months ago, the Maine State Legislature enacted the school consolidation law. The intent of this law is to bring the number of school systems in the state from over 280, down to approximately 80. The state believed that by doing this, cost savings could be realized by cutting down on administrative costs. 

The Arundel School Board listened to concerns of the Arundel residents, and approximately 12 months ago, made the decision to partner with MSAD 71 (Kennebunk, Kennebunkport); they felt the MSAD 71 school system would provide the best educational opportunities for the children of Arundel.

Since the decision to partner with MSAD 71, members of the three communities have met approximately 35 times, in order to write a plan that will not only be in the best interest of education, but a plan that will be in the best interest of the tax payer, as well as comply with the law. Please keep in mind that this plan is a “Plan of Direction” for the future RSU Board. The only part of the plan that must be adhered to is the cost sharing section.

This letter will address the main concerns heard from the Arundel residents throughout the process, and how the concerns were addressed within the plan. The entire plan can be found by going to www.arundelschool.net, as well as www.arundelmaine.org, or at the Arundel superintendent’s office. 

Control: The proposed RSU Board would be comprised of three members from both Arundel and Kennebunkport, and six members from Kennebunk. Although the goal of the current individual school boards is to reach a consensus on every issue, for legal reasons, each vote will be weighted based upon population. This gives Arundel approximately 22 percent, Kennebunkport approximately 21 percent and Kennebunk approximately 57 percent. Effectively, one person – one vote. The intent of the plan is also to have local, appointed accountability committees to represent each school.

Cost: The RPC committee has agreed to an over EPS formula of 60 percent valuation and 40 percent student population. Based on 2008-2009, Arundel would pay approximately 14 percent of the over EPS figures. The under EPS designations are set by the state. Using 2008-2009 budgets, Arundel would pay approximately 12 percent of the under EPS cost. Using the current 2008-2009 budgets from Arundel and MSAD 71 if combined as an RSU today, the estimated savings to Arundel is approximately $100,000. Due to stipulations in the law, employment contracts within the RSU will need to be brought to parity by 2012. The estimated cost to the RSU to bring all the Arundel contracts in line with MSAD71 in the first year is approximately $728,000. Our share would be approximately $102,000 ($728,000 multiplied by 0.14). If spread out evenly over three years as the law allows, our share would be approximately $34,000 per year ($102,000 divided by three). Based on the budgets from 2008-2009, if the contracts are brought to parity in the first year, the estimated net cost is $2,000 ($100,000 minus $102,000). Based on the budgets from 2008-2009, if the contracts are brought to parity over a three-year period, our estimated net savings will be $66,000 ($100,000 minus $34,000).

Educational opportunities: Opportunities include student access to new and existing programs at a shared cost, increased professional development opportunities for staff, collaboration of experienced staff members from each district, increased access to adult education programming. The educational philosophies of both districts are based on providing quality opportunities for all students in a cost effective manner. MSAD71 currently ranks in the top 5 percent of the state in MEA scores. MSAD71 is the only district in the state of Maine offering the international baccalaureate program.

Mildred L. Day School — By law, the only way a school can be closed is for the community where the school is located to vote for closure. Over and over again, we heard how important the school is to the town. This message was brought to the table and supported by the RPC members from all three towns. As part of the cost sharing formula, stipulations were added to protect kindergarten through  fifth grade schools. In order to close MLD, there must first be a two-thirds super majority of the RSU board to recommend the closure of the school. Second, it is then up to the town of Arundel to decide to close it or keep it open. If we decide to keep it open, the cost sharing formula will be adjusted so as the entire RSU shares the cost of keeping the school open. 

School Choice: High school choice is protected by the law and will be honored by the RSU. High School choice can only be taken away by the state.

Thornton Academy contract: The law states contracts must be honored. The contract will become the property of the RSU. It is written into the plan that the contract will be honored.

Penalties for non-compliance: The penalties are part of the law. The only way to avoid them is to consolidate. If by January 30, 2009, we have not approved a consolidation plan, the state will begin to levy penalties to our district. The penalties will be in the form of reduced state aid, as well as an annual increase of 2 percent to the mil rate. Based on the current 2008-2009 budget, the first year penalties are an estimated minimum $120,000. The penalties will continue to grow year after year. 

Our unique school district consists of high school choice for secondary education and a middle school contract with Thornton Academy; the costs associated with both are controlled contractually. Since, those costs are contracted, the estimated minimum $120,000 penalty, as well as the increased penalties levied each year following, will have a direct and significant effect on elementary education at Mildred L. Day School. We feel any decrease in the budget for elementary education will have a significant negative impact on the education of these students. If penalties are levied due to a failure to consolidate, we fully expect the penalty will need to be passed through to the taxpayer. We cannot cut funds from our budget without a significant negative impact on the quality of education at Mildred L. Day.

To summarize, on Nov. 4, if both districts vote “yes” to consolidate, Arundel will combine school districts with MSAD 71 beginning July 2009 at nearly no net cost increase, and possibly some savings based on 2008-2009 budgets. If the vote fails, we have until January 30, 2009 to consolidate. If after January 30, 2009, we have not consolidated, then the Arundel school district will be penalized an estimated minimum $120,000 through reduced state aid, as well as an annual increase of 2 percent on the mil rate. The penalties will continue to grow annually. As a school board, we do not feel it would be educationally sound or responsible to reduce the budget in order to absorb the penalties. In an effort to avoid significant harm to the quality of education at MLD, the penalties would need to be passed on to the taxpayer. 

In spite of the flaws of the consolidation legislation, the Arundel School Board recommends a “Yes” vote for consolidation.

We believe consolidation will provide Arundel with the best long-term educational opportunities for all, with minimum cost to the taxpayer.

Matthew Sylvanus, Alan Richard, Lynn Cote, Pamela Richard-Wuerthner and Jason Nedeau

Arundel School Board

Know the truth before heading to polls

Editor:

On Nov. 4, citizens of this country will elect a new president. Regardless of which candidate one chooses, it is important to understand the truth about each candidate. I will leave it up to John McCain’s supporters to clarify his background but want to state the facts about Barack Obama. 1) Barack Obama was born in the United States and is a citizen of the United States. 2) Barack Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. 3) Barack Obama is not now nor has he ever been a terrorist. He served with William Ayers on an educational board funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Philanthropist Walter Annenberg was a conservative publisher who was appointed by President Richard M. Nixon to serve as ambassador to Great Britain and was a great friend of Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

Please do not let misinformation color your choice. The consequences are too great.  

Diane Denk

Kennebunk

MSAD 71 board urges ‘Yes’ vote

Editor:

[An open letter to the residents of Arundel, Kennebunk and Kennebunkport]

On Nov. 4, you will be asked to vote on the proposed school consolidation plan, a complex proposal that has been publicly negotiated and scrutinized over the past 16 months by representatives and community members from each of the three towns. In spite of the inherent challenges created by Gov. Baldacci’s initiative, the undersigned directors of MSAD 71, are writing to endorse this proposal and asking you to vote yes on this critical ballot question for the following reasons.

1) The plan as presented addresses educational benefits for students while attempting to mitigate large swings in tax increases for the local taxpayers.

2) There are significant financial penalties for refusing to comply with the law, specifically, a 50 percent reduction in state funding for system administration and an annual and permanent 2 percent increase in the mil rate. Voting “No” will be voting “Yes” to an annual and permanent increase in your property taxes in addition to an anticipated increased federal tax burden caused by current economic crisis. 

3) It’s a law. This law has already cost our collective community volunteers and elected officials countless, unrecoverable hours and our towns legal fees at the hands of this unsavory legislative mandate. Voting “No” would mean allocating even more public time and money toward this issue. Voting “No” on the RSU plan would be in direct violation of Public Law 2007, Chapter 240, Part XXXX (enacted by passage of LD 499, the two-year budget, on June 11, 2007) and Public Law 2007, Chapter 668 (enacted by passage of LD 2323, An Act to Remove Barriers to the Reorganization of School Administrative Units, on April 18, 2008). 

4) For those of you hoping that Skip Greenlaw’s effort to repeal the law will eventually win out, understand that the secretary of state has publicly stated that the legislature will not take up the issue until January. Even if it passes the legislature, the governor will veto the repeal measure, which will require a two-thirds majority to override it. The legislature has already had two chances to kill this legislation without success. Given that a great number of legislators reside in cities and larger towns with districts already above the requisite 2,500 students and not impacted by this law, it will be nearly impossible to muster the votes for an override. If the repeal effort eventually goes to the voters, it will not be voted on until November 2009; the penalties for non-compliance will already be in effect and will be further complicating a difficult budget year.

5) Let’s get back to the business of running our communities. A “Yes” vote will allow the leaders of our towns and respective school districts to move forward with key hires, budgets, union contract negotiations, and the immediate financial challenges presented by the global economic crisis. Just this week, the Maine Department of Education warned school districts that funding could be frozen or cut for the existing fiscal year. This measure alone will severely impact our ability to deliver quality education for our communities. 

We all want access to the highest quality education for our children, local control of that education, and control of our personal financial interests. No one likes to have our local hands tied by the executive branch. However, please don’t take out your frustration on our children and your neighbors who are already hurting. That aggression would be best directed 90 miles up the turnpike in Augusta.

Again, we urge you to vote “Yes” on the proposed school consolidation plan on Tuesday, November 4th.

Norm Archer, Tim Hussey, Maureen King, Gary A. Koch, Art Leblanc, Kate Manahan, Brenda Robinson, Jim Smith

The MSAD 71 Board of School Directors

Charter change is slippery slope

Editor:

Six questions on the Nov. 4 Kennebunk municipal election ballot ask voters to approve all, or parts of, the proposed new Kennebunk Charter. They will appear as questions 3 through 8 on the ballot.

Questions 3, 4, 6 and 7 are fairly self-explanatory as stated on the ballot. Questions 5 and 8 are more complex. The packet of information being provided at various locations around town is well done and contains information relating each question to the various charter sections that fall under it and that information should be studied very carefully. 

Question 5 gives me the most concern since it proposes a massive transfer of power away from the people to the board of selectmen. It accomplishes this by making the board of selectmen the legislative body of the town in place of the town meeting.

By reading Sections: 2.01, 3.05, 3.06(6), 6.01, 6.03, 6.04 and 8.01 of the proposed charter, one can see just how this transfer will be accomplished and what it involves.

Unfortunately, the parts of question 5 are not balanced enough to allow the residents a fair opportunity to override any ordinance that may be passed by the board of selectmen under its proposed new powers. As stated in the last sentence in Section 6.03, for such an effort to succeed, the total number of ballots cast at the election must equal or exceed 25 percent of the number of registered voters on election day. In fact, this would require 2,308 voters to turn out (25 percent of the 9,233 voters registered as of Sept. 22) if it were in place now. 

How likely do you think it would be that that many voters could be motivated to turn out to vote on whether or not to override an ordinance. Only 793 Kennebunk residents voted in the May 2008 school budget vote!

Residents have the power to approve or disapprove most ordinances now – why allow a majority of an elected board (3 out of 5, or 4 out of 7) to make that decision without being able at least to have a fair opportunity to vote on it. That one last sentence is a “poison pill” which, in my opinion, will make it nearly impossible for the citizens to ever override an ordinance. 

An additional concern I have regarding ordinances is that adoption of question 5 will end up resulting in a whole new subset of local political conflicts compounded by the frustration of being unable to meet the 25 percent requirement to override an objectionable ordinance. I saw that happen in two of the municipalities I have managed during my many years as a municipal manager.

I urge Kennebunk residents to vote “no” on question 5. I also recommend a “no” vote on question 6 as an expanded board of selectmen would not be necessary if question 5 is defeated.

Question 8 proposes a number of changes including an important new section on conflicts of interests and ethical standards as well as a number of grammatical and technical corrections that need to be made. I urge Kennebunk residents to vote “yes” on question 8.

James K. McMahon

Kennebunk

... so then who is stealing Obama signs?

Editor:

I am responding to Arthur Thoms’ letter, published in the Oct. 24 issue of the Kennebunk Post.

I share some of Mr. Thoms’ frustration regarding lawn signs. We had our lawn sign stolen on Oct. 7 or 8. I replaced it with a new sign a few days later.

Unlike Mr. Thoms, I will not rant about the “Messiah” or “brass ones.” I find it ironic that someone who supports the Republican Party is concerned about the possibility of Democrats squashing dissent.

I would ask Mr.Thoms to give us examples of when current elected Democrats have displayed this kind of behavior; I have not seen evidence of it. The current Republican administration, on the other hand, has placed labels such as unpatriotic on people (like me) who opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was being justified by false evidence and waged on a country that had played no part in the terrible 9/11 attacks. 

I am looking forward to living in a country where different opinions are listened to and respected. Barack Obama possesses this ability, and I believe the Democratic Party espouses this philosophy in general. General Colin Powell’s testimony on Mr. Obama’s behalf pays testimony to Obama’s character and willingness to bring together people with different views.

When we elect a man whose father was African and whose name is Barack Hussein Obama, I and the rest of the world will marvel at the progress the United States has made since the days of segregation, barely a half-century ago. 

David Shultz

Kennebunkport

Letter was out of bounds

Editor: 

We’re writing in response to Arthur Thoms’ Oct. 24 letter to the editor regarding his stolen McCain-Palin signs [Lawns Signs: ‘I’m Mad. Really Mad!’]. We agree that stealing signs is wrong, and having signs in support of your candidate stolen from your yard is infuriating. However, we take exception to Mr. Thoms’ insistence that it is only the Democrats who are up to this mischief. Every day people come into the Democratic Headquarters in Kennebunk and report such incidents, hoping to purchase another sign. And, many are unable to replace them this late in the election season.

Mr. Thoms’ name calling, sarcasm and statement that “it is obvious that they (the Democrats) will do everything possible to get the Messiah to the White House, from potential voter fraud to stealing small road signs,” is the kind of language that divides us, and keeps us stuck in believing that anyone with an opposing point of view is an enemy.

Let’s raise our level of thinking and dialog so we can work together to solve the serious problems facing us. We can find common ground. Yes we can!

Judith Merrow

Joanne Brauninger

Kennebunk

Row-Spaulding endorses

Editor:

Rarely have Kennebunk voters been presented with more challenges and choices, in any election. For the record, here are my two cents on local/state issues:

United States Senate – Collins. Congress – Summers. State Senate – Bryant. State House District 140 – Parry.

State Referendums: Question No. 1 to Repeal the Beverage Tax – Yes. Question No. 2 on Casinos – No. Question No. 3 on Water Bonding – No.

School Consolidation with Arundel – No.

Municipal Referendum Questions – Question No. 1 (CEEK) – No. Question No. 2 (Heating Assistance) – Yes. Question No. 3 (Referendum Vote on Budgets) – Yes. Question No. 4 (Land Ordinance Referendum Vote) – Yes. Question No. 5 (Give Remaining Power to Selectmen) – No. Question No. 6 (Increase Number of Selectmen) – No. Question No. 7 (Implement Selectmen Term Limits) – Yes. Question No. 8 (Housekeeping and Implement Stronger Conflict of Interest Rules for Selectmen) – Yes. 

Town non–binding referendum questions – it is “very important” to me that the town stop their efforts to spend $12 million tax dollars on the extravagant, brick sidewalk Downtown Revitalization Project. Therefore, I will vote to “Strongly Oppose” that project, as well as “Strongly Oppose” any other unnecessary spending this year, including the questions on funding additional Parks and Recreation, open space and conservation land.

My vote on every one of the non–binding referendum questions is: the town should spend nothing on this. We need to preserve every precious tax dollar we have, if we’re to thwart the town manager’s current threat to essential town services. In case someone hasn’t heard, he’s proposed cutting our sidewalk clearing this winter, as well as turning off some 190 streetlights. Meanwhile, he’s spent $35,000 on the Downtown Revitalization Project studies, renderings, and survey questions.

Until Kennebunk Town Hall figures out they’ve got a severe disconnect between the “left hand” and the “right hand,” my vote will be “no” on any non–essential spending. I think brick sidewalks and patio umbrellas fit that category.

Naran Row–Spaulding

Kennebunk