AUGUSTA — The pressure is on the Education Committee to bring about substantial change to the school consolidation law.

At a hearing last Friday, rural legislators pleaded for help to prevent what they say will be increased costs to taxpayers and loss of local control over their elementary schools.

“I’m begging you to help my small towns,” said Rep. Rob Eaton (D-Sullivan), who echoed others in requesting the state slow down the timetable for school consolidation.

Eaton and other lawmakers asked that the state allow local school committees to maintain control over elementary schools.

The majority leader in the House and minority leader in the Senate also testified in support of change.

Rep. Rob Eaton

The law requires districts to have no fewer than 1,200 students each and be governed by regional school boards.

Education Committee Chairman Sen. Peter Bowman (D-York County) said he believes a bill will come out of his committee proposing substantive change, although he made it clear he was not speaking for his fellow committee members.

“On a scale of 1 to 10, with no change on the left and a complete overhaul on the right, I think we’re looking at somewhere between 4 and 6,” Bowman said Friday, after a hearing where 21 legislators testified on proposed amendments to the law passed last year.

While a full day had been blocked out for the hearing, testimony was completed by lunchtime since only half of the more than 40 legislators who had initially proposed amendments showed up to speak.

The committee was scheduled to continue its deliberation of proposed amendments this week and also reconsider a bill from the Department of Education that addresses financial barriers to consolidation, including giving regional planning committees more flexibility to determine cost-sharing formulas among communities that are coming together.

Sen. Richard Rosen

Change Versus Repeal

The most often repeated requests from legislators at Friday’s hearing were for more time to implement the law, which currently requires local referendums be held on consolidation plans by November of this year; an alternative governance structure that allows for “super unions” so communities could keep their local school committees to run their elementary schools; an exception to the minimum size, which currently is set at no fewer than 1,200 students; and an elimination of penalties for districts that don’t comply, replacing them with incentives to encourage participation.

Rep. James Schatz

Weston and others backed an alternative proposed by Rep. Peter Edgecomb (R-Caribou), a member of the Education Committee, who is calling for creation of Union School Associations, or what he shortened to the “USA” plan.

It would allow for a continuation of the union form of governance, where a joint committee hires a superintendent, who oversees central office functions and makes decisions regarding a shared high school, but local school committees still exist to govern local elementary schools. The USA plan would lower the minimum size of districts to 1,000 students.

Sen. Kevin Raye

Pingree supports a plan proposed by Mount Desert Island that would allow communities there to continue with their union structure and local school committees. They would come together as a region, as they do now, to run the high school and central office staff.

Pingree said the core issue is protecting local schools, which are more likely to close if the decision is left in the hands of a regional school board.

Local Control

“The [local] governance is one of the most key issues there is. It’s what makes people feel connected,” Pingree said. She assures parents “my small elementary school is not going to close.”

Rep. Hannah Pingree

Without the change, however, legislators cautioned the committee that voters could reject the law at the polls.

“A quarter of a million people live in the districts, who are having those concerns,” said Rep. James Schatz (D-Blue Hill), who supports repeal of the law, but offered ideas for changing it, including allowing school unions and a longer timeline for creating new districts.

“These deadlines clearly have to be extended,” Schatz said, and, “We should eliminate the penalties.”

Sen. Kevin Raye (R-Washington County) gave similar testimony.

“I remain convinced the law was a serious mistake. It is my hope it will be repealed,” he said, but at the very least schools unions should be allowed “as an alternative in those areas where the state’s full-frontal attack on local governance is unacceptable to the people.”

Rep. Bruce MacDonald (D-Boothbay) said he believes the state went beyond its original goal of creating administrative efficiencies. Those could be achieved by creating regional administrative units to focus on sharing central office functions, versus consolidating the entire district, including the operation of local schools.

“I’m against the Wal-Martization of schools,” MacDonald said.

Other Fixes

Sen. Richard Rosen (R-Hancock and Penobscot counties) is not calling for a complete overhaul of the law, but has proposed a controversial change that would not protect existing personnel contracts when new regional school units are formed. The law currently calls for all negotiated contracts covering superintendents, other administrators and teachers to be honored by the new units until those contracts expire.

His amendment would remove the requirement that all contracts be adopted and allow regional planning committees to recommend staffing levels. Rosen said without that change districts will not be able to save money through consolidation in the first year.

Rosen said he also now believes “more time and more information” are needed to make the law workable.

“They need more time to deliver a product that would be approved by voters,” Rosen said. “The bottom line request I’m here for is for more time and better information.”

Rep. David Miramant (D-Camden) proposed a number of amendments and also focused on the need for more time and less penalties for those that don’t comply.

“I’d like to see the timelines loosened,” he said, and a chance for districts that miss the deadlines “to explain why you shouldn’t incur those penalties.”

Several representatives want to change the budget validation piece of the law, which would require local ballot votes to approve school budgets, for at least the first three years after a new district is formed. The idea behind the requirement is taxpayers need to understand where their money is going when it comes to education.

While some argued to get rid of the required vote all together, other said, at the very least, only those districts exceeding costs as outlined in the state’s Essential Programs and Service funding model should be required to approve budgets at the ballot box. Those spending less than required under the state’s formula, which is designed to assure students get an adequate education, shouldn’t have to vote.

“They’re already being quite frugal,” said Rep. David Farrington (D-Gorham) about those spending under EPS, but the law is “requiring that municipality to incur a new expense.”

Rep. Charles Harlow (D-Portland) has argued strongly against the budget validation law, saying in Portland the vote would cost taxpayers an extra $50,000.