RUMFORD – School administrative consolidation is now law, but whether SADs 21, 43 and SAD 44 will make it a two- or three-way marriage is far from certain.

“Don’t assume anything,” SAD 21 Superintendent Tom Ward said after a 90-minute presentation of the state school restructuring law by Department of Education consultant Norm Higgins.

According to recent legislation, school districts and school unions must file an intent for a plan to consolidate by the end of August, then a plan or alternative plan for reorganization by Dec. 1.

That means a lot of people in each of the three districts must get together to learn about and discuss the financial and other impacts of a possible consolidation.

Ward said his board will discuss potential partners for his 1,000-pupil district at their July 9 meeting.

In SAD 43, Superintendent Jim Hodgkin said his board’s July 16 meeting will delve into the possibilities, and in SAD 44, that date will be in early to mid-July.

SAD 44 Superintendent David Murphy said his district will look at all possibilities, from standing alone, to joining with SAD 17, Rangeley or SAD 43.

“We’re all waiting for the financial information from the state,” he said.

That information, according to David Connerty-Marin, director of communications for the Department of Education, should be available a few days after July 2.

Property values and the impact on state aid to education will affect each of the regional school systems that are eventually created under the state law.

If SADs 21, 43 and 44 do become one school system, they would be Regional School Union 42, Higgins said.

SAD 44 board member Lynn Arizzi asked Higgins why it was assumed that her district would join with SADs 21 and 43.

“It has seemed like a foregone conclusion,” she said.

Higgins said nothing had been assumed, and that the people in each school district would decide. But looking at SADs 21, 43 and 44 made sense geographically.

“But no one will make that decision for you,” he said.

SAD 43 board member Ed Flynn suggested that Higgins, and the two other department representatives who are making similar presentations throughout the state, bring someone from the Legislature to explain why certain formulas and financial figures were included in the law.

And Barbara Chow, a SAD 21 board member, questioned how individual school district budgets would be developed during the transition period.

As presented by Higgins, once a plan of intent is submitted, a committee comprised of school, municipal and general public representatives from each of the towns and districts that are considering consolidation would be formed to develop a reorganizational plan.

The state law mandates, in most cases, a district no smaller than 2,500 students.

Residents in the targeted areas would have three chances to vote on whether to accept the proposed consolidation plan. The first, in January 2008, then in June and finally, in November. All districts, except those that receive an approved exception, must have a consolidation plan in place by July 1, 2009, or face penalties by the state.

The DOE is in the middle of conducting 26 informational meetings around the state. Those meetings are slated to conclude on July 13.