Regional School District Steering Committee
Report of the Manchester-Essex Regional School District Steering Committee
February 24,2004
Steering Committee:
Jay Bothwick (Manchester by the Sea Fin. Com.)
Dawn Grohs (Manchester by the Sea Selectman)
Jeff Jones (Essex Selectman)
Gordon Martin (Essex Fin. Com.)
Robert E. Couture (Facilitator/Chairman)
Organization
The Steering Committee of the Manchester-Essex Regional School District was appointed by the District School Committee in December 2003. The Steering Committee membership was appointed with the cooperation of the Essex and the Manchester by the Sea Boards of Selectman and Town Finance Committees. The members appointed were: Jay Bothwick (Manchester by the Sea Fin. Com.) Dawn Grohs (Manchester by the Sea Selectman) Jeff Jones (Essex Selectman) Gordon Martin (Essex Fin. Com.) Robert E. Couture (Facilitator/Chairman)
The School Committee “Charge” to the Steering Committee was to review the Regional School Agreement giving consideration to deficiencies or ambiguities in the Regional School Agreement, including issues relating to apportionment of costs among the member towns, remedial actions as a result of an unbalanced budget, (the need for a) dispute resolution mechanism, elementary school (capital costs) responsibility, the leases between the Towns and the methodology for filling vacancies on the (School) Committee. The Steering Committee was also directed to examine other important issues that might emerge from their discussions on the Public Hearings. The complete “Charge” is located in Section II of this report.
Two Public Hearings were held in conjunction with the Steering Committee’s posted meetings. More than sixty (60) residents of Essex and Manchester by the sea attended the Public Hearings sharing their concerns and perspectives. The Steering Committee met on the following dates and places: December 9, 2003 - Manchester-Essex Regional High school January 6, 2004 - Essex Elementary/Middle
School January 27, 2004 - Manchester-Essex Regional High School February 10, 2004 - Essex Elementary/Middle School February 24, 2004 - Presentation of the Report to the School Committee
Introduction
The Manchester-Essex Regional School District has been in existence for four years. The original Agreement included all of the elements required for the formation of the District (Chapter 71, Section 14B of the General Laws). In fact, every regional agreement in Massachusetts includes these common elements, all of which must have Massachusetts Department of Education approval for the formation of a new district. The major differences between various regional agreements are usually found in the sections dealing with the “apportionment of operating expenses,” “leases,” “apportionment of capital costs” and other lawful considerations that may be unique to a particular district.
Dr. Couture researched more than fifty (50) regional school agreements in order to identify similarities and differences between the Manchester-Essex Agreement and others around the Commonwealth. As a result of this research, a series of alternative models (see Section VI of this report) were shared with the Steering Committee as they deliberated ways to improve the Manchester-Essex Regional School Agreement.
Jay Bothwick researched methods of resolving disputes in the private sector. That research lead to specific recommendations for a “Dispute Resolution” amendment for the Manchester-Essex Agreement (the specific recommendation can be found below and in Sections III and IV of this report).
The work of the Steering Committee was well defined and a spirit of collaboration was ever present in discussions and the decision making process. With very few exceptions most people who offered their views during the hearings and the Steering Committee agreed that the formation of the Manchester-Essex Regional School District was a good idea. Each town came to the deal with a different set of needs but a common set of expectations: that students in both towns would be the benefactors of improved programs and facilities with continuity of educational quality and opportunity throughout the new district. While all of the needs and expected outcomes have not yet been achieved, there is a prevailing wish to stay the course. Citizens of the member towns are coming to realize that regional schools require cooperative effort, compromises and
sacrifices if they are going to work in the best interest of all involved. The hope of the Steering Committee is that the recommendations in this report will improve the Agreement and the relationship between the Towns. In that spirit the Steering Committee recommends the following:
Recommendations
1. Section 1, part (e) - Eliminate the 30-day requirement to fill vacancies on the School Committee. Comment: 30 days may not always be enough time to fill vacancies. Because it is in the best interest of each town to fill vacancies expeditiously, it is believed this change best accommodates a process requiring meetings and careful consideration of potential candidates who will play an important role in Regional School governance.
2. Sections 3 and 4 - Assign capital cost responsibility for the elementary schools to the towns in which the school is located. This will also necessitate some changes in Section 3, Lease Agreements.
Comment: The Towns have elementary schools that appear to be in different states of repair. With very few exceptions, each elementary school enrolls only students who are residents of the Town where the school is located. It makes financial sense that each Town be responsible for major maintenance, renovation and construction costs that may occur for their own elementary school. The Steering Committee recommends that the initiation of proposals for capital costs originate with the School Committee and that the operating costs continue to be apportioned as defined in the present Agreement. Services, curriculum development and coordination, instruction and supervision, administration, etc. should always be under the control and direction of the District School Committee and Administration.
3. Section 4 - The Regional School (operating) Assessments to be determined using a “rolling three year average” to be implemented over a three-year period beginning with the FY’05 Assessment.
Comment: This arrangement exists in many regional school districts. It reduces the financial impact of significant changes in population numbers allowing the impact to be spread over several years. Even small enrollment changes can cause significant cost increases for a member town. 4. Section 10 - Add to the Agreement a section requiring the District to make an Annual Report to be submitted before
October 1 of each year to the Boards of Selectman and Finance Committees of each member town. The Report to include all of the calculations and costs related to the member town’s regional assessment for that fiscal year. This Report could also include other information and financial data that the School administration deems important, Comment: Many regional districts use this process to keep their member towns informed of the specifics and calculations that formulate the assessments for that year. Given the
recent Manchester-Essex experience, a process such as this provides all the information needed to insure equity in each member town’s financial commitment to the District.
5. A new Section 12 - Add to the Agreement a “Dispute Resolution” amendment that will guarantee a defined step-by-step process to be used whenever serious issues develop between the member towns.
Comment: This process will guarantee the careful examination and review of a problem and possible methods for resolving the dispute. It also requires that all steps be taken before any form of litigation occurs. This recommendation is unique to regional agreements. It insures that every effort will be exerted to resolve issues and preserve the integrity of the Agreement and the District. Other Considerations
The Steering Committee also examined data and considered the following: 1. The concept of allowing individual towns
to independently supplement their elementary school budgets was discouraged. The belief being that such an amendment would undermine the collaborative nature of the Agreement that is designed to provide mutual benefit and equal opportunity to all students regardless of which school they attend in the District.
2. A “withdrawal” amendment was reviewed that would allow either member town to withdraw from the Region based on a single vote of the town considering withdrawal. The Steering Committee agreed that amending the “withdrawal” language in the agreement would cause greater division between the member towns and compromise the spirit of cooperation and mutual resolve that represents the collaborative spirit of the current Agreement.
3. Special Education (tuition-out) costs for each town were examined. This year (FY’04) the cost ratio of SPED costs for member town students is similar to the school member town population ratios. The Steering Committee agreed that there was no need to recommend changes in the way SPED costs are now handled in the District.
4. The Steering Committee also examined the “School Choice” numbers and cost factors for FY’04. The numbers are in steady decline for Essex with very few Manchester by the Sea students choosing the “School Choice” option. The steering committed acknowledged that when the District was formed, Essex brought additional Chapter 70 funds to the table. Those additional funds more than offset any shortfall related to Essex “School Choice.” The Steering Committee agreed that it was not necessary to add an amendment to the Agreement to compensate for the “School Choice” factor.
Summary
All recommendations noted above represent the unanimous agreement of the Steering Committee. The members of the Committee agree that the Steering Committee model makes sense as it provides an objective forum for the member Towns to work together to improve relationships and the quality of the Agreement that binds the towns together. This Model is woven into the fabric of the “Dispute Resolution” amendment because it is a very effective way to improve the quality of the Agreement and the education delivered through the Agreement to the youth of Essex and Manchester by the Sea.
Last updated May 13, 2004
|
