Final Statement From Yes on 3

Thank you to everyone who voted Yes on 3 and helped the effort.  Now we work to get the changes made that consolidation needs!  I’ll be doing a full analysis of Question 3 later at the Augusta Insider.  Read a statement from Skip Greenlaw after the cut. Continue reading

How You Can Help Yes On 3

A post at the Augusta Insider shows that No on 3 has been getting help from corporate interests.  Yes on 3 is largely a grassroots movement.  This is why they need your help.  With a week left until Maine votes, it is important Yes on 3 drums up as much support as possible.  Corporate interests, in an effort to kiss up to Governor Baldacci, have thrown in their weight against the interests of Maine communities.  It is time to stand up for the little guy, the communities who didn’t have the influence to talk their way into exemptions, and help repeal the current school consolidation law.  There are some simple things you can do to help in this final week. Continue reading

Yes On 3: Why You Should Vote Yes on 3 to Repeal Consolidation

Skip Greenlaw of Yes on 3 has released an announcement supporting a repeal of the current consolidation late.  Greenlaw outlines why the law has failed, why it is unfair, how it is too rigid, how it has not saved money but cost communities more, and what the solution to the current law is.  Please read Greenlaw’s full statement after the cut and remember to vote early if you can or on November 3rd. Continue reading

Weekly Blog Round-Up: Gubernatorial Inerviews, Marriage, & More.

A  round-up of stories published Oct 11th – Oct 17th at The Maine View and from other Maine blogs Continue reading

Yes On 3 Reply to Gov. Baldacci’s Email

The following is Yes On 3′s reply to Gov. Baldacci’s recent email urging Democrats to vote to uphold school consolidation.
Stonington-  Repeal of the school consolidation law (question 3 on the ballot) will not cost Maine taxpayers one cent. There is significant information which suggests that there is no net cost savings to school consolidation.
Gov. John Baldacci is making incorrect claims about the cost of repealing his failed school consolidation mandate.  He is trying to confuse voters by saying the $37 million which was cut from state aid to schools as part of the school consolidation law is really savings.  “Even his own staff knows that is not correct,” said Skip Greenlaw, head of the Maine Coalition to Save Schools, which collected 61,193 signatures needed to put repeal on the Nov. 3 ballot.  “Basically, the governor needed to cut $37 million in expenditures to balance his budget last year,” Greenlaw said. “Now he’s trying to influence the outcome of the referendum vote by rewriting history.”  The reality is that by voting Yes on question 3 to repeal consolidation, Mainers will save money now and in the future.  Voters in 125 communities understood the issue of costs and savings when they rejected the mandate despite the threat of penalties that are scheduled to go into effect next year.  Consolidation in most areas of the state cost more than it saves. Continue reading

Yes On 3 Statement from Skip Greenlaw

Yes On 3′s Skip Greenlaw has provided The Maine View with his argument for repealing consolidation.  Mr. Greenlaw cites lack of actual savings, harsh penalties, and more in support of a consolidation repeal.  Please read his full statement after the cut.

Brian Hubbell did some calculations of the plans provided by the DOE and that were approved by the towns and savings were $1.6 million. She [Commissioner Gendron] said in June of 2007 that [school consolidation] would save $221 million over three years.  She was way off base in terms of his estimate and now she doesn’t even want to acknowledge it saves $1.6 million because in reality it will cost more than it will save.  Once the [unified] negotiated contracts come in it will be a big cost.

We are having a hard time communicating some of this.  I think we’ve made a pretty good argument.  I think we have a good argument to make.  A couple of arguments the opposition is making is that repeal will cost money.  It will cost nothing if [consolidation] is repealed.  There seemto be some people who think there is a connection between $36.5 million and what has been saved from consolidation.  That is not true.  There was a $36.5 million reduction in educational subsidy in 2008-2009 that was connected to consolidation, but had nothing to do with any cost savings.  It was strictly a reduction.  The Commissioner again has said if consolidation were repealed they would need to add a couple lines in an appropriations act to assure that the reduction is still continued.  So repeal isn’t going to cost anything, which is what the opposition is trying to say.

Another thing the opposition is trying to say is that if these towns that have consolidated want to continue that the repeal will obliterate that.  Our organization has never said that we’re opposed to all consolidation.  We said that we were opposed to mandatory consolidation.  There are some consolidation efforts that have taken place that may be OK,  although I am beginning to think there are more consolidated units that are unhappy.  I just got an email from someone in the Belfast/Stockton Springs area and I just found out last night about people in the Sheepscot River area who are very unhappy with this.  So there may be a lot of these consolidated units that may come apart if they have the opportunity to.  For the ones that want to stay together that’s fine.  We support the idea that all the legislature has to do is basically write two sentences in the law that any unit consolidated under the RSU laws will now become an SAD and any unit consolidated under the AOS statutes will now become a school UNION.  The burden for consolidation is all on the small school systems of the state.

There are two things I agree with the Governor about.  The state cannot maintain this level of education funding.  Of course they’ve had to cut back because of the recession.  The vote that took place in June of 2004 where people voted to go to 55% was ill-advised.  It has basically bankrupted the state.  I don’t think the state can ever get to 55%, as desireable as that may be.  The money isn’t there and I think it has caused a lot of money problems all across state government, although the Governor and legislature worked very hard to get there.  I think that is the genesis of this whole problem.  I agree that the government cannot maintain this level of funding.

I also agree with the Governor that there has been a significant decline in enrollment over the past few years and probably will continue.  We certainly have had an enrollment decline where I live.  We’ve gone from 550 to 379 or something like that.  I really question whether or not the decrease needs to come at central office administration or, as what has taken place, a decrease in teaching positions.  I don’t know at what point the reduction of students means that we combine two school districts and still have them function.  I know that we have reduced the number of teachers in the past few years as enrollment has dropped.

I think the assumption of what he [Governor Baldacci] is after is incorrect.  I think the whole bill wasn’t well thought out.  They had to go back and amend it.

Initially the bill was enacted in June of 2007.  They wanted consolidation done by December 1st of 2007.  There was only one unit that wasn’t an island that had complied.  They had to go back and amend the law to give districts another whole year.  There are units they hold up as a standard of saving money around Bath and Aroostook, which is fine.  It took them five years to come to the conclusion they wanted to consolidate.  Let other units have the same type of time to work things out.

In the Machias area they voted against consolidation.  After they voted against consolidation the superintendent Scott Porter got all the towns together and they voted to go under his superintendency.  There are eleven towns under his administration.  Four do not have any tuition students.  So I called and asked them why they voted to do this after they voted against consolidation.  Superintendent Porter said to me that he didn’t recommend consolidating because the DOE would not break out the educational subsidies to the various units.  They would just send one check for the whole eleven towns and that was it.  The DOE has not been very helpful in this whole thing.  Many legislators who thought this was a good idea now agree that the thing is a disaster.

There are a lot of people that understand that consolidation has not worked well.  How would you feel if in your community the legislature told you that you had to do something and that if you didn’t do it the way they said it you would get fined?   That’s not a very good feeling for anybody.  That’s what happened to maybe 135 towns.  If this law doesn’t get repealed they are going to be fined $5 million dollars for voting their conscience.  People have looked at these plans and decided the plans cost more than they save.  They are willing to take the penalty even if it will mean less subsidy.  I think those are people with a lot of courage.

I sometimes wonder why the Commissioner said she would not be an advocate for this.  Why all of a sudden after advocating this for two years has she stopped now?  I don’t know if they have backed away because they realize this law has lots of problems and they don’t want to get involved?  It seems to me they were they ones that spoke about it, they ought to be able to come out and defend it.

No on 3 Statement

Newell Augur, the campaign manager for No on 3, has provided The Maine View with a statement as to why school consolidation should stand.  A statement from Yes on 3′s Skip Greenlaw and my opinion on Question 3 coming soon. Full statement after the cut. Continue reading

Yes On 3 Asks Maine to Start Over

The Yes on 3 campaign to repeal school consolidation believes that the “experiment” is not working.  Political manipulation have allowed some districts to remain exempt while others are threatened Yes on 3 says.  School consolidation, they say, is too rigid, has saved no money, and must be repealed so that a better plan can be put in place.  Read the most recent statement from Yes on 3 after the cut. Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.