For clarification in regards to the citizens petition for the reapportionment of the RSU 9 Board of Directors.
If Farmington and Wilton’s directors are at the meeting they hold 64 percent of the vote.
With Farmington and Wilton’s directors and ONE other director they can have a legal meeting because they would have a majority of the director’s present and a majority of votes, leaving 7 towns without any reason to attend a meeting.
Each of the 5 Farmington Directors has 8.4 percent of the vote for a total of 42 percent of the total vote.
Each of the 3 Wilton directors has 7.4 percent of the vote for a total of 22.2 percent of the total vote.
The other eight towns in the district have a combined total 35.8 percent of the total vote. Chesterville 7.4 percent, Industry 5.0 percent, New Sharon 7.6 percent, New Vineyard 4.1 percent, Starks 3.5 percent, Temple 2.9 percent, Vienna 3.1 percent, Weld 2.3 percent.
With this in mind the other 8 towns have become nothing more than an ATM for the school district.
By decreasing the board from 16 members to 10 members, all with one vote and each vote being equal, then ALL towns will have a voice in what happens in RSU 9. With the 10 towns and one representative elected from each town, elected by the entire district, we feel this will help diminish the animosity between towns, and the citizens in them. Our goal would be to eliminate the yes vs. no voters, in hopes to unify the district. All representatives are supposed to represent all students and not necessarily the town they are from. All votes should be equal.
The opinion of Drummond/Woodsum (attorneys for RSU 9) “…Each schoolboard member is accountable to the entire district, not to any member municipality.”
Craig Stickney 491-1863
Chesterville
Tiffany Estabrook 860-9317
Chesterville
It is inherently unfair to have just one member from each town on the board. That is a cynical attempt to shift power towards the minority – towards lower population towns. It would radically decrease the ability of people from the larger towns to get on the school board, since it would be only one from a large population (compared to the small towns). This is blatantly unfair and cynical. If one wanted to alter the board, there would be fairer options. More at large representatives is a possibility, for instance. But a plan that goes to ten members with one per town is an inherently unfair effort to shift power to the minority, and prevent legitimate representation.
If one wanted to be fair, they could divide the larger towns into sections that are relatively even based on population. That would be more than ten members, but given the committee work necessary in the board, ten members is a bit low. But the plan as put forth is fatally flawed and fundamentally unfair.
With reapportionment couldn’t the smaller towns gang up against Wilton and Farmington under this new proposal. Wilton and Farmington send the most students and provide the largest contributions to the school district. Those smaller towns could make decisions that really impact Wilton and Farmington, without having a way top defend themselves against the little towns.
Maybe if Chesterville and the other small towns disagree with the arrangement, they could leave this district.
This plan allows everyone voter to vote in all of the 10 towns school district elections. I wonder how the voters in the smaller towns would feel about this, knowing that Farmington and Wilton voters will be choosing their school district members.
That proposal is unconstitutional as it would violate equal representation of citizens. The core problem is the old town tribalism. In fact while elected at the town level school board members do not represent the towns. Their are no Wilson members or Farmington members only rsu 9 members. Apportionment of boards is by population not town. You could have one physical member from each town but each would have a weighted vote based on the population they represent. That’s home it works in a representative democracy.
Whoops I should add The Towns are not supposed to have a “voice” on the school board. The citizens are to have an equAl representative voice. Which is exactly what they do have.
While I understand your motives, this represents a gross misunderstanding of how representative democracy works (and is supposed to work).
It seems to me that the attitude of previous comments are biased against the small towns having a fair say. Scott and just asking seem to be against giving minoritys any power. IMHO . Just asking thinks we should kick the small towns out because they don’t contribute as much as the big towns. What if we did that in society ? We would kick people on welfare and ss out because they don’t contribute as much as people with jobs. Instead of ridiculing the small towns how about you open hojr eyes and see how much they really do for the schools. Some of these kids are latge contributors to after school programs and sports teams. Why dont you kick out the disregulated students? As we know it costs us approximately $300,000 this year to get these kids some sort of help because they can’t sit down and act accordingly in class. How about not getting all wound up as this doesn’t actually change how it works it only gets the question on a ballot.
Just doing some rough math here, but that would mean, in theory, each Temple/Vienna/Starks/Weld resident would have 4 times more “say” than a Farmington resident. Doesn’t quite sound like democracy to me and I can’t imagine that after just a little bit of thought that even the staunchest budget cutters would support this extremely poorly thought out plan.
If you guys want it totally “your” way,. Maybe a one room Schoolhouse in your little town would help you.
This poor me crap is as old as the hills.
Ridiculous ploy.
If I read this correctly, if Farmington and Wilton directors go to the meeting with one other town, then seven towns can go home for they in essence have no say to the outcome of a vote. On the other side if eight of the smaller towns go to the meeting, unless Farmington and Wilton have at least two representatives there they cannot have a meeting. Seems fair to me !
The key word is EQUAL respresentation. I believe that each school board representative should be on the board for ALL 2,300 students not just for the 440 students that Mr Erb claims to represent.
Decisions should be made based on how the district is effected.
The proposed method of voting is used in other districts in Maine.
Seems to me that the larger towns are afraid of losing “control”.
Mr Erb, if ALL voters in the DISTRICT were to vote for ALL directors of the DISTRICT,thent unlike you, they would represent ALL students in the district, how could that be considered “inherently unfair”? I am sure that you and your “I’m smarter” attitude will come up with some sort of nonsensical answer.
Question: Is the Board not charged with being accountable to all the students of the district now, and the tax payers of the district?
Since the board proposes spending, and spending levels set taxes required once approved by referendum, does the board represent the citizens of their towns, their ability to pay, and the students of the district?
The current practice represents the citizens equally, and continues the charge of representing the students of the district.
Mr Strickney: has the Board and ever met with only the Wilton, and Farmington and one other town’s representative and voted? I can understand your concern if this has happened in the past.
Are not the voting meetings advertised and scheduled in advance? Do many members miss the meetings, and from what towns?
With 64% of the directors, students, and tax base, is not that ATM you are talking about discharging 64 % of the budget from Farmington and Wilton taxpayers??
64 % of the tax base, 64 % of the students, 64 % of the votes? Sounds fair to me.
Craig Stickney
For those people who may have been misled. All of us have been led to believe the present method of voting is the only way to have votes on the board by being weighted. Please look at the Maine State statue below. It is self explanatory. You may also want to check out more items under Title 20 A Maine State Statutes.
Maine Revised Statutes
§1251
Title 20-A: EDUCATION
Part 2: SCHOOL ORGANIZATION
Chapter 103: SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTS
Subchapter 3: SCHOOL DIRECTORS
§1253
§1252. Methods of representation
The following are methods of representation. [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]
1. Method A: Subdistrict representation. Directors shall represent subdistricts.
A. The subdistricts, as far as practicable, shall be whole municipalities. If the municipalities are divided into subdistricts, then they shall be divided into subdistricts of approximately equal size as determined by the latest Federal Decennial Census or Federal Estimated Census. The municipal officers shall provide a separate voting place for each subdistrict of the municipality. [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]
B. The boundaries of each subdistrict shall be determined by a majority vote of the joint meeting or reapportionment committee. Each subdistrict shall have one director, except that in a municipality comprised of 2 or more subdistricts, the joint meeting may authorize the election of directors-at-large. [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]
[ 1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW) .]
2. Method B: Weighted votes. Directors shall cast weighted votes.
A. The committee shall apportion 1,000 votes among all the members of the board. The ratio of the number of votes cast by the directors representing a municipality in relation to the number 1,000 shall be the same ratio to the nearest whole number as the population of the municipality is in relation to the population of all municipalities in the district, as determined by the latest Federal Decennial Census or Federal Estimated Census. [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]
B. To assure the use of whole numbers, the 1,000 votes apportioned among the board members may be increased or decreased by not more than 5 votes. [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]
C. A plan may not permit the voting power of any director to exceed by more than 5% the percentage of voting power the director would have if all 1,000 votes were apportioned equally among the directors. [2011, c. 171, §1 (AMD).]
D. In a municipality served by 2 or more directors, the votes cast by them shall be divided equally among them. The directors shall be elected at large within the municipality unless otherwise provided by municipal charter. [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]
[ 2011, c. 171, §1 (AMD) .]
3. Method C: At-large voting. Directors shall be elected at large by all of the voters in the district.
[ 1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW) .]
4. Method D: Other. Directors may be elected by any other method that meets the requirements of the one-man, one-vote principle that is not included in Methods A, B or C.
@Scott Gray, and the writers of this article:
It seems that you only want it to be “equal” when its equal in your favor. You want 10% of the power, though you do not have 10% of the students. But does your town pay 10% of the taxes going toward the budget? I’m sure that you do not, as this is proprotional to population. It should either be that you pay 10% of the budget and get 10% of the say, or you be glad that you pay less than your “fair share” of the school budget and accept a smaller amount of voting representation. I understand that it isn’t currently this way, but maybe it would change your perspective if it were.
Another question, more for the writers of the article than Mr. Gray. If the RSU sees you only as an ATM, why not just leave? You obviously are not happy with the RSU, and you seem to think they’re taking more money than they need. Why not start a Chesterville Community School for your students if you think you can provide a suitable education for less than the proposed budgets? While I would hate to think about what may happen to your students if you did this, you seem to think it can be done. So why not take on the challenge?
Wilton and Farmington can sustain their own students. Can you?
The town of Weld back in the early 60s made a big mistake with the decision to send their kids to Wilton instead of Dixfield. I think it’s time for the town to rethink that decision.
To: I’D Rather Not:
As you point fingers at people and are afraid to identify yourself Maybe you should seek out some facts.
The debt service in RSU 9 is so high, that there isn’t any town who could afford their debt service amount, and leave to go to another school district. Maybe the reference above about ATMS should say hostage. From what I
understand this is a proposal in which the commissioner of Education could deny, it is merely for him to look at the entire process and make a decision as to whether the district moves forward or not. You have also turned this into a budget debate. It is so sad that people hide behind the screen and do not search out the facts.
.i’d rather not……. Does each town pay the same amount per student?
Wouldn’t be nice to all work together, and have the budget pass in June, keeping that dream alive.
@glen holt, to my knowledge, they do. Therefore, they (referring to each individual smaller town in the district) are paying for their students to attend Mt Blue. But since they don’t have 10% of the students, they don’t pay 10% of the budget. I see this as fair. Along with this proportionate reality, however, they should also get less than 10% of the say in budget/school board votes.
@Craig, I prefer not to identify myself as I do work in education in this area, and do not want to ruin my professional relationships with parents who disagree with me on this issue, but who I otherwise love and get along with quite well. I agree with the change to the term hostage, and thank you for the info. I wish that you could leave the district if it is your desire to do so, as I honestly think it would be in everyone’s best interest to part ways, as Wilton and Farmington residents (myself included) will likely always advocate for higher budgets than the smaller towns. I hope you understand, however, that even though it’s a shame you can’t leave and act on your own accord, I will continue to act and advocate towards my own beliefs, which include higher budgets.
Craig Stickney
I’D Rather Not:
My good friend Charles has talked to me as he was very confused also. I told him to use my name as an indicator that he tried to get some facts.
As a professional educator you have my sympathy if your friendships and relationships are so shallow. However, this is not the point. Reapportionment, is about representing all of the students by each director equally, not budget votes. Let’s get back to the real issues. Instead of taking shots at people, educate yourself to the facts of what this reapportionment could mean and how it could very well start the healing process of the communities. If we all had equal input, I believe along with many others the entire district would run smoother. However, the constant pointing of fingers just keeps the animosity going. Enough Said.
@id rather not
Are you implying that smaller towns are not a good as larger towns. This is NOT about the towns..it is about ALL students if he district.
Instead of yes vs no towns It sounds as though you are turning it into rich vs poor towns?
We all pay our fair share of taxes!!!!
I’m sure there are the working class of your town who would love to discuss $1.5 million yearly increases from the district.
The argument for the proposed reapportionment seems ludicrous. Using the proposed logic, one could argue that each state should have 1 electoral vote for presidential elections. I am sure Maine would love to have an equal electoral vote as California but doing so would not be equatable.
Again this petition ONLY brings attention to the commissioner of the DOE. If he chooses to it will be put on a ballot for ALL 10 towns to take a vote. So the folks on here in panic or getting angry with others need to calm down. Some commenters here and other articles getting high numers of comments show the hypocrisy in this area. Have a nice day
Oh my gosh ” gust saying ” wouldn’t I love to see New Sharon get out of that money pit that provides a sub standard education.
Jesse,
There’s no public vote. If the DOE commissioner determines the current plan to be insufficient, a reapportionment committee is formed. That committee is the one that makes the decision.
I was wrong Wayne I was under the assumption that it would go to a vote. However the commissioner can throw it out if he wants or have a committee research and decide. Had this been gone over years ago when the previous superintendent was in office we could avoid where we are at now. But as we know most of the schoolboard goes with whatever they are told.
Soon, Jesse, people might be saying that about you as well. I’m figuring you’ll rely on your own mind, and your colleagues on the board will be relying on theirs.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the reapportionment would mean that all 10 towns would get to vote on your individual town representative. So, if you are a candidate in a smaller town, than those citizens in the bigger towns would be deciding your fate.
Sounds like this curmudgeon needs to move farther out into the sticks. It’s getting so complicated.
I pay taxes, and We don’t have any children and never have.
What is inherently unfair is that of the large population of Farmington, only one person could be chosen to the school board, while out of the small populations of the other towns, one could be chosen.
This is a cynical and unfair attempt to try to shift power to the small towns and away from the higher population centers because people think that if the small towns controlled the process then they’d cut the budget. If they can’t convince people to vote their way, they want to twist the rules and process to try to benefit them.
Moreover it would be costly, and it would likely bring about law suits (from what I’ve been hearing) if it were to be done. I’m pretty sure it won’t happen. It’s so obviously unfair to people in the larger population centers, and obviously a gimick to try to get a particular result, that I can’t imagine it will go anywhere.
One other thing those in small towns should consider. Right now, say, Chesterville has a lot of people very dubious about the size of the school budget. They can choose someone for their seat on the board who reflects that attitude. If it became “at large” for the whole district, a Chesterville resident who disagrees with the prevailing town sentiment could run, and Farmington activists could get out the vote for that person. The result would be that Farmington and Wilton could decide who represents the small towns – it would be politically smart for them to recruit and support candidates more in line with their views. So there could be an unintended consequence of weakening the voice of smaller towns as their votes get overcome by the votes from the population centers. That could exacerbate any tensions rather than relieve them.
A lot of reasons why this expensive idea should be looked at with dubious eyes.
Mr Erb, The commissioner of education ultimately decides if there is reason to change the method. I REALLY don’t think that he would allow something “unconstitutional” to be allowed. These statements that you and others make appear to be nothing more than scare tactics. If you people really believe this is unconstitutional. then why don’t you contact the commissioner of education and get back to us with the information that his office provides?
We are not going to let the Commissioner of Education decide how we want to organize ourselves. I noted two problems (and said nothing at all about constitutionality!): 1) Large population centers like Wilton and Farmington would only have one board member, meaning that it would be much harder for citizens of those towns to serve; and 2) large population centers like Farmington and Wilton could organize and recruit candidates in small towns and vote in people that do not share the same values of their town. Right now small towns know their citizens and have autonomy to choose who represents them. In this proposed system, the population centers could take over and elect people who would otherwise not be elected in small towns. It would certainly create an incentive for people in the larger towns to take a real interest in who gets elected in small towns. Beware of the unintended consequences of such a change – it may create the opposite result of what you hope!
Scott how many people were running for the 2 seats in Farmington? Answer 3. How many ran in Industry? Only me. I don’t foresee an issue with people not being able to get on the schoolboard that want too because I dont see that many lining up. Yes it could be twisted to still have all in favor of the budget on the board even in the small towns that would clearly show the rest of us taxpayers just how the supporters of an increasing budget really value their neighbors. That may prove to backfire on their side as well. The more people get informed about this process the more of a chance we have to change things in our school system. Also after reading your comments on this article to the article about the march against guns you should take a stand on one side or the other. You cant give power to the minority on one side and feel it shouldn’t be on the other. Lets see where this goes after all aren’t we supposed to embrace change ?
I believe 1 quality school board member per town could be a good thing. No one town should have 42 percent of the say when 9 other towns taxes and children are affected.
Maybe we can build the next New school in weld or Chesterville , Wilton . It would be nice to have our grade school children close to home again. It seems though sad 9’s mission is to close schools more busses , overcrowd and build or rehab schools in Farmington . bigger schools don’t mean a better education .
Jesse, I’m just pointing out the dynamics of the issue. You make “at large” voting for all seats, and the small towns lose control of who represents them. If the issues are salient, there will be candidates – candidates will be recruited. I don’t think this proposal will go anywhere – it’s unfair to the majority of the population, and it holds potential poison for the small towns as well. It seems bad for everyone. Also, I remind you that the school board has decreased the total amount it asked from property taxes the last two years, and even though this year looks like it’ll break that trend, it’ll be less than was asked in 2015. That’s pretty friendly to taxpayers!
I thought the school budget was set by the school board then validated by the citizens of the 10 towns. If that’s the case it shouldn’t matter if board members are “recruited” by other towns because the people, not the board, ultimately decide the budget.
This change would only affect the process leading to validation and perhaps reduce the number of validation votes so a budget can be set in a timely manner rather than after the school year begins.
Let’s look at what is fair at another angle. Using the proposed budget figures for 2018-2019 the Town of Weld’s school board director has a weighted vote of 23, the lowest of the RSU9 towns.To compare to Farmington’s director that has a weighted vote of 84. It means Weld’s vote is worth about !/3 of a Farmington’s director, AND there are 5 Farmington directors! Now it will cost Weld $15,620 next year to educate each of the students that attend RSU9. It will cost Farmington $5,352 to educate each of its students. Vienna’s weighted vote is 31, Wilton’s is 74 each for 3 directors AND Vienna will pay $13,000 to educate each student it sends up to the schools of RSU9. Wilton on the other hand will pay $4840. Other towns costs range from $8150,$7000, $6900,$5799, to a low of $4861. Used figures from the Mt. Blue School District Budget 2018-2019 to arrive at these figures. Hope my math is correct and GOOD LUCK at arriving on what you think is FAIR concerning this discussion.