A group of Southporters traveled to Augusta last Wednesday to support the Department of Education's proposed financial fixes to the school consolidation law. Their efforts were not in vain. On Thursday, December 13, the legislature's Education Committee voted to approve LD1932 as an emergency measure. If accepted by the full legislature in January, this amendment would immediately remove the 2-mil minimum education contribution, restore the special education subsidy to minimum receivers, and allow towns within the new regional school units (RSUs) to determine their own cost sharing formula for education costs above the Essential Programs and Services (EPS) level. After hearing public testimony, the committee voted unanimously to delay the new budget validation process, which would have gone into effect in 2008, for another year.

As currently enacted, the consolidation legislation would result in increased education costs for residents of Southport, Boothbay, and Boothbay Harbor. The 2-mil minimum would result in a doubling of Southport's education bill and a loss of over $1.7 million in state subsidies to the peninsula. The current cost sharing formula would also shift a disproportionate share of costs over EPS to communities with higher property valuation. Bruce White, Union 49 School Committee Chairman, summarized the costs for the committee, "Southport currently raises $850,000 for K-12 education. Under the new legislation, that figure would escalate to $1.6 million because of the loss of the special education subsidy and the 2-mil expectation . . . The towns of Boothbay and Boothbay Harbor would be required to raise $465,000 more, increasing their taxes. This would result in an increase of $1.2 million for education in the Boothbay Region. The new proposed RSU will lose $1.7 million in special education subsidy that is currently being received as separate units."

Virtually all of those who spoke in support of the amendment made it clear that, while these proposed measures were an improvement, the overall consolidation proposal remains unpalatable. Representative Bruce MacDonald testified in support of LD1932 while voicing his concerns about the original legislation, "I stand before you as a reluctant supporter of this bill, reluctant only because I still have major issues with the underlying effort . . .but it represents an opportunity to remove some significant financial problems."

White also was clear that the proposed amendment was not an adequate remedy to the consolidation problem. He ended his testimony by expounding on the Boothbay region's support for education and making a pitch for continued local control over schools, "Apparently, we are a system that works. Our school budgets were adopted with overwhelming support by our communities . . . Please come back to the communities and recommend - you pick the number - three percent, five percent—reduction in school costs and let us decide how to reach that goal."

The Education Committee was adamant that only testimony specific to the provisions of LD1932 would be heard; other concerns about consolidation were to be saved for another legislative session in January. By my count, 23 people testified before the committee on Wednesday; nine spoke in favor of LD1932 - all with expressed reservations; 13 spoke against the amendment, and one spoke neither for nor against. Those in favor represented communities in circumstances similar to those in the Boothbay region.

Those speaking against LD1932 offered a variety of reasons and were more frequently questioned by the committee. Representative Jim Schatz (Blue Hill), who represents towns that are also minimum subsidy receivers, testified, "LD1932 is void of substance that would create predictability and stability for future budgeting . . . we were told that administrative school consolidation would reduce education costs and property taxes . . . we are now looking at substantial increases . . . there's not tax relief, there's not gain, just how do you limit your losses."

Several others echoed Schatz's concerns that LD1932 did not offer enough in terms of financial relief, particularly in light of the expected increased costs due to personnel contracts, contract arbitration, and budget validation referenda. Judy Sproule, a retired investment banker from Trenton, testified that LD1932 does not remove the financial barriers to consolidation. "It just shifts the blame from the Department of Education to the regional planning committees," she said. Sproule said that the amendment also failed to address the significant financial barrier created by requiring that employment contracts be merged. "Many millions of dollars of additional expenses to taxpayers will be created with no corresponding benefit," she advised. Sproule also noted that most individuals on the planning committees lack the financial or legal expertise needed to create viable merger plans or cost-sharing agreements. Representative Alan Casavant (Biddeford) concurred that the superintendents and volunteers that are tasked with merging districts are "maxed out."

Geoff Herman, Maine Municipal Association, testified that the budget validation process could have significant impacts for towns. If school budgets fail, the current legislation allows schools to operate on the previous year's budget. However, Herman pointed out that without a school budget, which is a large portion of town budgets, towns would not be able to commit or collect taxes, which potentially devastating consequences. Senator Charles Harlow (Portland) also expressed concern about the costs of additional, and perhaps repeated, municipal balloting under the legislation's school budget validation process. When asked, DOE Commissioner Susan Gendron stated these increased balloting costs would be added to school administration, the area of education costs that consolidation is intended to decrease. Ultimately, the committee voted unanimously to immediately delay the budget validation process by one year.

There were also those who spoke in opposition of LD1932 because they are in favor of retaining the 2-mil minimum education contribution. Senator Richard Nass (York) stated, "We're on the other side of the 2-mil thing. It seems fair to us, that when the state average is 16-17 mils for education, that any community should not be paying less than 2. I think that's what 2 is all about and should be all about." Representative Kathleen Chase (Wells) concurred, "I don't think the 2 mils should be considered a barrier, if anything, it should be considered an obligation. We are all in the business of education . . . If we don't have a minimum obligation, it is only beneficial to the wealthier areas." When Howard Wright (Southport) testified that the 2-mil minimum could mean having to sell his home because of the increased tax burden, Education Committee member Senator Peter Mills (Somerset) responded that Southport's 0.9 mil education rate meant that "with a half million dollar home, you're contributing $450. I think that's minimal enough." Although Mills ultimately voted to approve LD1932, the 2-mil question is likely to be further debated when this bill reaches the full legislature.

The school consolidation debate in Maine is clearly far from over. January should prove to be an interesting month as the legislature reconsiders the consolidation law and opponents push for its repeal. Union 49 Superintendent Eileen King says that she is hopeful that legislators will listen to those most closely involved in the work of consolidation. King said on Monday, "It is encouraging to finally get a sense that the powers that be in Augusta are starting to finally respect the thoughts and opinions of those in the field. There are many issues to address as we continue to develop the plan for the new RSU... My only hope is that the Ed Committee continues to be open to the issues that arise, as well as thoughtful to the opinions of those in the field."

Time will tell.