|
Home
Up
News
Contact Information
Member Directory
Next Meeting
Search
Links
| |
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2006
Present: Clifford Fountain, Susan Pieciak, Mindy Kempner, Gene Carlo, Ken
Rocke, Mike McFarland, Peter Dewar, Christine Lynch, Rep. Cleon Turner, David
Papagni, Alan Genovese, Bob McIntyre, Dee Dee Niswonger
Proposed regional regulations
The meeting started with a commendation of Jeff Wulfson’s presentation
at the MASS meeting on Sept. 27 and a reiteration that Chapter 70 Section 16B
still is the law, but it is a flawed law. There is agreement that regulations
are needed and that they need to be done in committee to prevent negative
reactions from regions. Unfortunately the regulation revision is, in part,
driven by misbehavior of a few districts.
There is some confusion over whether the current regulations still apply. They
do. The proposed changes have not yet been codified.
The DoE’s goal in one sense is to have a dialog on regions, budgets, on
notifying towns, etc. The DoE wants uniformity across all districts. And the DoE
wants MARS in-put.
The issues needing discussion are assessments and E & D.
Assessments: How are taxpayers being charged? Some
districts (only 3 or 4) use some very illegal methods that need to be corrected.
Following much discussion some points were clarified. The provision that anyone
could request preparation of two budget documents, one for each assessment
method, will be dropped from the regulations. We have not seen this yet, but
Jeff Wulfson indicated pretty clearly on Sept. 27 that he saw why we did not
want that potentially difficult provision brought forward.
The two legal assessment methods are being called the Chapter 70 method and the
regional agreement method. The Chapter 70 method assesses required spending
according to the ability-to-pay idea, (using the aggregate wealth measurement
tool voted in this spring) and assessing over minimum costs according to the
regional agreement. Most districts use this method now. The regional agreement
method assesses entirely by the regional agreement. A few use this method now.
The law that has been on the books for some years that allows a district to use
the regional agreement requires that the member towns of any district must vote
annually to use the regional agreement and that the vote must be 100% in favor.
MARS is in agreement with MASS and MAVA that the school committee is the
empowered body to determine policy on which method should be used. That would
mean, if the proposal is accepted, that if the school committee wishes to use
the regional agreement it must vote to do so, with a 2/3 vote annually. If that
2/3 vote passes then the towns must vote 100% to use the regional method and
that must happen annually. It should be noted that a vote to use the regional
agreement method is NOT a vote on the numbers produced for assessment by that
method. Town meeting/city council action on the assessment is a separate vote on
a separate warrant article. If the school committee does not take any action
about method of assessment then the assessment will be done using the Chapter 70
method.
The above ideas do not change the law, are not currently in the proposed
regulations, but are themselves being proposed as clarifying language to become
part of the regulations. In fact they reflect what is happening now, in that now
school committees that want to see their budgets assessed by the regional method
start the process. So this idea simply clarifies current practice. One area
discussed was the percentage of vote needed at the school committee level to
start the process. Should more than 2/3 of school committee members be in favor?
While many were pleased with the clarification above, it does not ensure
adequate funding for education. Only with an increase to the foundation budget
can we move toward adequacy. With the minimum contribution of most towns
decreasing the need for increases in state aid through the percentage of
foundation budget supported by the state is crucial. Even if a district is
spending at 112% of foundation this does not mean it is spending above what is
needed, it is only spending above an arbitrary number not indicative of what is
needed.
E & D : How to be fiscally responsible through the school committee
to the taxpayers? This is the issue that makes the E & D account question
important.
Currently there is only one legal means to access E & D and that is through a
school committee vote recorded in the minutes directing the superintendent to
use the money in a certain way. The school committee is not acting legally if it
votes a discretionary action of some sum for an administrator to use. When an
emergency happens the superintendent can get verbal authorization from the
school committee chair to proceed following which the superintendent takes the
bills to the school committee which then authorizes the use of E & D and the
vote and minutes follow. In the proposed regulations only town meeting or city
council could authorize use of E & D. This is an opinion from the DoR. Ropes and
Gray, the legal firm which wrote most regional school law, and which is advising
regions on this issue today, emphatically disagrees with the DoR’s opinion.
The only way a district can have an E & D account is to have money left from a
budget. It is similar to a 3A Trust fund for health insurance. After town
meetings are done the money in the health insurance line is sent to the 3A Trust
and all health bills are paid out of the trust. The trust can float from year to
year and is audited, though not certified. E & D is both audited and certified.
It cannot exceed 5% of the district’s budget.
Currently the MMA does not agree with us, favoring the DoR approach. With
education on what the DoR approach really means for cities and towns may
effectively change their position. Having to go through numerous town meetings
for passage of approval of E & D usage will be very expensive for towns. In many
instances towns are relived that districts can take care of problems out of
districts’ own accounts. Transparency should be achieved through the annual
audit reports of each school.
Without an E & D account, a school can put in some sum for emergencies, and then
go to each town for it’s share (calculated by using the regional agreement) to
meet the bill. A $200,000 roof crises, a $50,000 water main break, whatever,
would each be billed during the school year, at the time of the emergency, to
each town, which would have to pay up out of it’s own E & D accounts. Regions
think it is more fiscally efficient to carry their own “rainy day” fund.
Furthermore, regions are described in the law as being like a town in every way
except the ability to raise taxes, so there is no legal reason preventing them
from having an E & D account.
We appreciate the involvement of Ropes and Gray in this, and feel some
confidence that the DoE will assist regions if there are compelling legal
arguments.
Regional Transportation pilot program
We need to participate in the upcoming (no date yet) November meeting to discuss
the pilot program, and what kinds of ideas could be tried. PLEASE CONTACT JAY
SULLIVAN AT THE DOE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE PART OF THIS DISCUSSION. CALL 781
388 3300 X 6594. Those who gave me your names at the meeting need not call Jay.
A discussion ensued that produced several ideas. Chris Lynch, DoE, indicated the
department does not want to send out yet another survey, but it is necessary to
know what questions need to be asked to determine whether a district is most
efficient. We need to know what actual practices are and why they are done.
When asked what the legislature wants to know to fully fund transportation, Rep.
Turner answered “economy”. Out of an earlier example in the conversation he
referred to the information that driving a smaller bus rather than a big one
does not always save money—legislators need to hear that kind of information
with supporting evidence.
We were reminded that we need to get information into the legislature before
Jan. 1.
The concept that all districts are efficient through using the same practices is
incorrect and needs to be corrected. What may be economical in a two town system
such as Dennis/Yarmouth, with a small geographical area and a large student body
may not serve a district like Franklin Cty, with 17 towns and but a smaller
student body.
We need data from bus drivers indicating not only mileage but how long do you go
in a length of time. Mileage and time: one might go 1 mile in same time another
goes 10 miles because of density factor.
Many ideas were brought up including day light savings time and the safety of
drop off points before and after dark, length of time a student is on the bus
versus length of time it takes family to drive child to school, weather (some
districts have altitude driven winter weather), road maintenance.
Schools are required to have the seats to carry all students but the kids don’t
all use the buses, and each bus must be 75% full and they often aren’t. This
situation often irks towns’ people who see inefficient scheduling as the cause
of wasted dollars. Crises can occur that suddenly make students use the buses;
without required provision the buses would not be able to carry then.
Transportation pilot program audit issues
Districts that have the highest cost per student in transportation will
be one criteria for being chosen for an audit. The DoE audit is not to “catch
you”, not out of expectation of misbehavior but rather to share ideas, to gain
helpful information.
Examples of helpful information needed:
Which districts own their own buses? If not, with whom are districts
contracting? What is the correlation between owning own buses and competitive
bidding? What affect on cost is there when there are no competitors?
Subcommittee on declining enrollment
MARS is forming a sub committee to work in the problem of declining
enrollment. This is not a specifically regional problem and MARS is not the only
organization beginning to deal with it. It is, however, an issue of great
concern to many regions, particularly in the western part of the state, and it
seems responsible of your organization to begin looking for ways to deal with
the problem, starting with the need for a state policy on the issue. If you are
interested in being part of what will probably be a series of meetings on this
please contact the MARS office.
I have received some complaints that MARS e-mails come through partially
garbled. If this is happening to you, please contact me so I can figure out what
the problem is. Thanks.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dee Dee Niswonger
For More Information Contact:
Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools
P.O. Box 334, Williamsburg, MA 01096-0334
Tel: 413-268-3607
E-mail:
niswonger@comcast.net
|
Massachusetts Association of
Regional Schools