District: Further negotiations not likely to lead to withdrawal agreement

NEWRY — Newry Withdrawal Committee member William Andrews characterized a recent letter sent by the SAD 44 school board to Acting Department of Education Commissioner William Beardsley as being “like telling Mommy that somebody did something bad.” 

The letter criticized the Withdrawal Committee for not having full representation at last month’s mediation meeting.

The two parties have been trying for a year to come up with a withdrawal agreement to present to Newry residents for a vote, but without success.

In November, the parties attempted mediation, which was also unsuccessful. At those two meetings, the four-member Withdrawal Committee was represented by only two members plus two consultants. The SAD 44 negotiators had a full contingent and made a general proposal to look into changing the school board representation in order to add an at-large member from Newry, thus effectively increasing the town’s representation. The move would be an alternative to withdrawal if Newry would stop the withdrawal process.

That idea was rejected by Gary Wight and Jim Sysko, the two Withdrawal Committee members present at mediation. Sysko said later that his committee does not have the authority to accept that offer, and could only negotiate an agreement.

On Dec. 9, a letter was sent to Acting DOE Commissioner William Beardsley from SAD 44 Withdrawal Subcommittee Chairman Marcel Polak and Board Chairman Lainey Cross, reporting on “the status of negotiations and formal mediation sessions.”

“Little substantive progress was made at either session,” the letter states. “Discussion was hampered by the fact that a quorum of the NWC did not attend either session. As you know, the town’s four Withdrawal Committee members are established by a statutory process that results in different perspectives on that committee. This makes it all the more important that at least a majority of the NWC attend negotiations, and certainly, formal mediation sessions.

“The NWC gave no prior notice to MSAD 44 that the NWC would not have a quorum in attendance for the mediation sessions, nor did it request rescheduling. All of the MSAD 44 committee members took a good part of each day to travel to Portland to attend both scheduled mediation sessions.”

“We will continue to provide you with updates as the situation warrants.”

The Withdrawal Committee met last Thursday.

“The parties each can designate their own representatives to negotiate on their behalf,” said Dan Stockford, the committee’s lawyer. “This committee designated Gary and Jim to be there to negotiate. There were no ground rules agreed to between the parties, between the board and the committee, that there needed to be a quorum present. I didn’t anticipate they would have a quorum. The issue was not raised during the first mediation session by the board, nor was it raised between the two sessions, nor was it raised at the outset of the second mediation session. It wasn’t until the end of the second mediation session that a concern was raised.

“The statement in the letter that they sent to the commissioner that discussion was hampered by the fact that a quorum of the Withdrawal Committee did not attend either session, I think, is very disingenuous. The fact is we have made multiple proposals that were rejected (over past months).”

“It’s outrageous for a variety of reasons,” said Dr. Mark Eastman, the panel’s educational consultant.

Andrews said he didn’t believe there is anything the commissioner could do about the situation, and SAD 44 was simply calling attention to it.

“It’s like telling Mommy that somebody did something bad,” he said.

Bonnie Largess, who is the SAD 44 school board member on the Withdrawal Committee, said Polak circulated the letter at last week’s school board meeting. She said she told directors that the Withdrawal Committee had never decided all members needed to be present at mediation.

“I gave our point of view,” she said, but there was no response from the board.

At Withdrawal Committee meetings over the past year, Largess has often defended SAD 44 against criticism on the quality of education in the district.

“If we had had all four committee members, would that have somehow resulted in an alternate proposal more appealing to them?” Eastman asked.

Stockford said that even if all had been present and wanted to pursue the proposal to change the representation on the school board, “they don’t have the statutory authority to offer it.”

On Monday, Polak was asked why the board sent the letter to the DOE commissioner.

“The previous commissioner recommended we enter into mediation and this letter was sent to the new acting commissioner to report back on the outcomes,” he said.

Polak was also asked about attendance by the Withdrawal Committee at the mediation sessions. He provided a sequence from the viewpoint of his committee: “There is no reason to argue about a mere technicality,” he said. “The real issue is whether the NWC is listening to and taking into account the other side’s proposals and reasons.

“We came to believe that the two attending members of the NWC were not seriously looking at our proposal and were not seriously listening to our reasons. We raised this issue for that reason.

“That being said, it is false that we did not raise the issue in mediation No. 1, and it is false that we raised the issue at the end of mediation No. 2.

“In mediation No. 1, the parties met at the beginning with the mediator, and each explained its position. The mediator then placed the parties in different rooms to meet with them separately. It became apparent that the two members were not evaluating seriously what we had said, and we raised with the mediator the fact that the NWC had only two members present. We do not know if the mediator said anything when he met with the other party.

“In mediation No. 2, the mediator placed the parties in separate rooms at the outset. The mediator met with the NWC first. As soon as the mediator came into our room to meet, we asked if NWC had a quorum and we immediately raised an objection when told it did not. We told the mediator we did not believe the two members of the NWC were representative. The law assigns particular persons to the membership of a town’s withdrawal committee, for their diverse backgrounds and perspectives, so it is particularly important that all the viewpoints be represented on that committee. That being said, we only raised the issue because we came to believe the two members present were not taking us seriously.”

As for SAD 44 only having two representatives in earlier negotiations, Polak said, “Before mediation, negotiation was conducted via formal written draft offers and counteroffers. These offers and counteroffers were fully authorized and submitted without meeting of the two parties. The parties met on March 4 and on July 13. Both sides understood that active negotiations would not occur at these meetings. These meetings had a different purpose. These meetings were held to allow the parties to explain their proposals, which had been submitted.

“In contrast, the purpose of mediation is to reach agreement in live session, and so active negotiation must be conducted at those meetings. In that setting, the issue is whether the NWC needs its full makeup to fully listen to and evaluate our proposal, and whether its own proposal is taking our positions into consideration.” 

Polak was also asked what the SAD 44 panel might have expected had their Newry counterparts all attended, if the Withdrawal Committee had no authority to entertain the proposal on changing board representation, anyway.

“The basis for our proposal has a fairness piece and a legal piece,” he said.

“The fairness piece is that Newry currently has the lowest overall tax rate, and it has exactly the same school tax rate as all other towns in SAD 44. The other towns cannot and will not support education by having Newry shrug off on them an additional $2,500,000 tax burden per year. The result of that would drastically impact student education. That is the fairness piece.

“The legal piece is that the Department of Education has been crystal clear that an ‘agreement’ means both parties agree on something. If they cannot agree despite their efforts, it is unlawful for DOE to impose withdrawal terms on either side. The courts have been crystal clear that the commissioner is correct in his analysis. The legislature has been crystal clear many times in the past that the situation in SAD 44 is unique, and that general laws should not be allowed to work unfairly in our special situation.

“Taking the fairness piece and the legal piece into consideration, SAD’s position is that the Withdrawal Committee should go back to the town and explain, first, that the current local school funding is fair, equitable, and reasonable for Newry; second, that Newry’s withdrawal would impose an unreasonable tax shift to the other towns and harm students; third, that further negotiations are not likely to lead to a withdrawal agreement; and fourth, withdrawal will not be imposed by the commissioner or the courts or the legislature. For these reasons, it is obvious that further prolonged negotiations will waste taxpayer dollars.

“The Withdrawal Committee’s lack of authority to negotiate the town’s school board representation is a red herring. Our proposal is that if Newry rescinds the withdrawal, the SAD committee will recommend to the SAD board that SAD 44 explore a different avenue, namely, a board reapportionment. This would effectively give Newry a greater voice on the school board, consistent with the ‘one-person, one-vote’ requirement of the law.”

Copy the Story Link