Skip Maine state header navigation
Summary of the
Reorganization Law
Updated 5/16/08
Minor clarification on AOS 7/18/08
Updated
12/8/10
This summarizes the reorganization law in
its entirety, including Public Law 2007, Chapter 240, Part XXXX (enacted by
passage of LD 499, the two-year budget, on June 11, 2007), Public Law 2007,
Chapter 668 (enacted by passage of LD 2323, An Act to Remove Barriers to the
Reorganization of School Administrative Units, on April 18, 2008) and Public
Law 2009, Chapter 580 (enacted by the passage of LD 570, An Act to Improve the
Laws Governing the Consolidation of School Administrative Units, on April 1,
2010).
State
Policy Objectives
The law
sets forth state policy to ensure that schools be organized as units in order
to provide equitable educational opportunities, rigorous academic programs,
uniformity in delivering programs, a greater uniformity in tax rates, more
efficient and effective use of limited resources, preservation of school choice
and maximum opportunity to deliver services in an efficient manner.
All school
units, of whatever form and whatever size – SADs, CSDs and municipal school
units, small and large – must:
Process
The
Commissioner of Education or her designee will convene regional meetings to
provide information, assistance and suggested alignments of school units.
The Commissioner can suggest alignment of units, but local units aren’t
required to follow those suggestions and will ultimately pick their own
partners.
SAUs will
file a “Notice of Intent” with the Commissioner by August 31, 2007 and then
work to develop a reorganization plan by December 1, 2007, or, if an SAU is
exempted by the Commissioner, an “alternative plan.”
Units seeking to propose an “alternative
organizational structure” (AOS), as allowed in Public Law 2007, Chapter 668,
must also submit and follow the guidelines for a reorganization plan. (More
information below under “alternative organizational structures”.) [Alternative organizational structure option allowed by
P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
Reorganization
planning committees (RPCs) will be formed locally and will determine the
structure of the proposed new Regional School Unit (RSU). Key decisions
of governance, including the size and composition of the board, and the method
of voting, will be made by the RPC and are part of the reorganization plan that
will be submitted to the Department of Education.
The
Commissioner must provide a written statement to the SAUs that submit plans
that do not meet the statutory requirements with the reasons for the failure of
these plans and suggestions for modifications of the plan.
All
reorganization plans are subject to voter approval. If the reorganization
plan is approved by the voters, elections will be held for seats on the RSU
school board. Alternative plans approved by the Commissioner do not require a
community vote.
The
Department of Education will provide facilitators to SAUs that request them to
provide technical assistance and guidance through the process.
SAUs that
are members of a proposed regional school unit must hold a referendum on the
plan on or before January 30, 2009. [Date
amended by P.L. 2007, ch. 668] The
referendum may be held on any date that otherwise meets election requirements
of the state and the municipality. The Department will pay for the cost
of one referendum anytime before Jan. 30, 2009, except on June 10, 2008, which
is already a state primary election date, and Nov. 4, 2008, which is the date
of the general election. (If a vote is held on either of those dates, there
would be no significant added cost for simply adding this additional ballot
item.)
Governance
Regional
school units will be governed by a regional school unit board; representation
on the Board is determined by the local communities as part of the
reorganization planning process.
The law
articulates the core functions for which the regional school unit board is
responsible, including, but not limited to: employment of the superintendent; central
business functions; administration of special education; administration of
transportation; adoption of a core curriculum; adoption of the regional school
unit budget; reporting required by state or federal regulation; employment of
all RSU employees; establishing a common school calendar; adoption of policies
for all schools in the RSU. [Clarification
of regional school unit board powers per P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
RSU boards
may create local school committees and specify their powers and duties, but may
not give up the core responsibilities. As part of the negotiations leading to
the formation of an RSU, a local school committee may be delegated authority to
propose a budget for its local school(s) to the RSU board. A local school
committee may propose, and local voters may approve, raising additional funds
for its school(s) over and above what is appropriated by the RSU school board.
This includes schools of any grade level. [Clarification
of local school committee powers per P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
Alternative
Organizational Structures
A
regional school unit may opt to form an alternative organizational structure
(AOS) in place of the standard regional school unit structure. An AOS plan must
ensure the 1) consolidation of system administration; 2) consolidation of
special education administration, transportation administration, and the
administration of business functions; 3) adoption of core curriculum and
procedures for standardized testing; 4) adoption of a plan for both consistent
school policies and school calendars; and 5) adoption of a plan for consistent
collective bargaining agreements. (Separate collective bargaining agreements
are allowed) [Clarification of core functions
of an alternative organizational structure per P.L. 2009, ch. 580]
The
plan for an AOS must also include one or more interlocal agreements, per
municipal law, and a plan for presenting, approving, and validating the annual
school budget that ensures K-12 budget transparency for its members and
their voters. The law requires a plan to achieve that goal; it does not specify
the details of how it must be achieved.
More information on alternative organizational structures
[Alternative
organizational structure option allowed by P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
School
Unit Size and Number
Existing
school units should aim to form regional school units of at least 2,500
resident students, except where geography, demographics, population density,
transportation challenges and other obstacles make 2,500 impractical. Where
2,500 is impractical, the units must create RSUs of at least 1,200 students.
Legislative
intent of the law is to create a maximum of 80 school units or the number of
units appropriate to achieve administrative efficiencies. The Commissioner may
not refuse creation of a unit solely because it causes the number of units in
the State to exceed 80.
All units,
whether consolidated or exempted, including island and tribal schools, must
submit a plan for reducing costs.
Exception to the Minimum Size Requirement
Isolated, rural
communities
Some
isolated, rural communities may be authorized to form a unit with fewer than
1,200 students, but no fewer than 1,000 students. Such RSUs must: be comprised
of three or more SAUs; be surrounded by approved regional school units and there
are no other units to join; or include two or more small schools eligible for
an isolated small school adjustment. [Exception
for isolated rural communities allowed by P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
Unique or
Particular Circumstances
Communities
exhibiting unique or particular circumstances may be authorized to form a unit
with fewer that 1,000 students. Units
must be able to demonstrate that all reasonable and practical means of
satisfying the requirements of the reorganization law have been exhausted, and
that approval is warranted based on the specific facts presented in the notice
of intent and is applicable only to the specific units the decision concerns. [Exception for unique or particular circumstances
allowed by P.L. 2009, ch. 580]
Exceptions
from Consolidation
“Doughnut hole”
SAUs exercising due diligence with respect to consolidation but experiencing
rejection by all other surrounding districts to be included in consolidation
will not be penalized if their plan documents efforts to consolidate and the
plan includes alternative ways of meeting efficiencies.
Efficient, High-performing Districts
School
units whose reported 2005-2006 per-pupil expenditures for system administrative
costs are less than four percent of total per-pupil expenditures and who have
at least three “higher performing” schools, as defined in the May 2007 Maine
Education Policy Research Institute report “The
Identification of Higher and Lower Performing Maine Schools”, are exempt
from consolidation, but still required to submit a plan to meet
efficiencies.
Offshore islands
and tribal schools
Offshore
islands and tribal schools are not subject to a minimum size requirement.
Financial
Impact
General
Purpose Aid for Education (GPA) will be reduced in four areas beginning July 1,
2008. The per-pupil rate for system administration will be reduced to 50
percent of the 2005-06 rates, adjusted for inflation and the per-pupil rate for
facilities and maintenance will be reduced by 5 percent. The Essential
Programs and Services allocations for special education and transportation will
each be reduced by 5 percent.
GPA will
continue to grow even after the reductions in the four areas mentioned above.
Removal of Financial Barriers
The law
allows SAUs forming a regional school unit to negotiate a local cost-sharing
agreement to compensate for cost-shifting that may occur as a result of
reorganization.
The law
allows school units currently eligible for the minimum special education
subsidy to keep that eligibility when they join in a new regional school unit.
The law removes an earlier requirement that
every SAU joining a regional school unit must raise a minimum 2 mills for
education.
[Removal
of financial barriers per P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
Penalties
Units
where voters do not approve a reorganization plan at referendum will face
financial penalties, beginning on July 1, 2010. Penalties for units that
do not form approved regional units by this date include:
For regular subsidy receivers that vote
against reorganization:
For minimum subsidy receivers that vote
against reorganization:
All
units that vote against reorganization (minimum and regular subsidy receivers):
A unit
that votes against reorganization in one referendum can develop another
reorganization plan and hold another referendum. The unit can avoid
penalties if it approves reorganization by referendum no later than January 30,
2009 [Date amended by P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
and is operational as a regional unit by July 1, 2009.
Schools
and School Choice
Reorganization
plans won’t close schools or displace teachers and students. Local schools can’t
be closed unless the regional board votes by a two-thirds vote AND the
municipality where the school is located votes to approve the closure. If
the municipality votes not to close the school that the regional board votes to
close, the municipality is responsible only for the added cost of keeping the
school open, not the entire cost (same as current SAD law, except this
provision now applies to high schools as well as elementary schools).
Each RSU
must provide comprehensive programming for all K-12 students, and must include
a public or publicly-supported private high school(s). There is not a
requirement that the high school be physically located in the RSU or municipal
school unit so long as there is a contractual relationship (or contractual
relationships) ensuring that every student – including those in special
education and alternative education – will be provided comprehensive
programming.
Communities
that have school choice now will, whether or not there is a contract to reflect
that school choice, continue to have school choice after reorganization, even
if they join a regional unit that has its own high school. An RSU may not by
law take that choice away from any of its communities that currently have it.
(However, communities that wish to voluntarily give up school choice before
entering a new RSU may do so.)
Municipalities
may retain ownership of school property as negotiated in the formation of
regional school units. [Allowed in P.L.
2007, ch. 240; clarified in P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
Teachers
and Other SAU Employees
Teachers
and other school administrative unit employees will be transferred to the new
unit, and will retain their rights under collective bargaining contracts.
Contracts will continue until their planned expiration dates and there will be
an orderly process for continuing collective bargaining.
Budget
Process and Transparency
Beginning
with the 2008-09 school budget, all school units will provide budget
transparency by using a uniform budget format that clearly shows the budget and
how it compares to Essential Programs and Services allocations for the RSU. The
budget must show 11 cost centers, defined in law.
A budget first
goes to the legislative body of the school unit – an RSU budget meeting at
which any voter may attend and propose changes to the budget or, in the case of
a municipal school system, the city council or other governing body.
After consideration
and approval, the budget then goes to a budget validation referendum – that is,
an up-or-down ballot before all voters in the municipalities making up the regional
school unit or municipal school system. The ballot must be accompanied by
a budget explanation document showing all 11 cost centers in the budget and, if
applicable, the amount the budget exceeds the Essential Programs and Service
allocation.
If the
budget fails at referendum, the school board takes it up again and the same
process is repeated.
P.L. 2007, ch. 668,
made technical corrections and clarifications, especially with regard to the
budget process for 2008-09 budgets in SADs and CSDs and some municipal charter
communities. The changes clarify that all budgets should be prepared with 11
cost centers and sent to referendum within 14 days after the budget meeting
(regional or municipal).
[P.L. 2007, ch. 668 made corrections and
clarifications throughout to the budget process.]
A
municipality or group of municipalities within a regional school unit may raise
and spend additional funds for any school serving any grade level. [P.L.
2007, ch. 668 expanded this option to include high schools, which were not
included under the original law] That is, the residents of Town A could vote to
raise additional funds for a K-8 school in their town, or the residents of
towns B, C, and D, which share a high school, could vote to raise additional
funds for their high school, over and above the funds provided by the regional
school unit board.
Previous Cost Sharing Agreements
Cost
sharing agreements adopted and in effect prior to the effective date of the new
reorganization law and pursuant to certain laws remain in effect unless the
parties to the agreement modify or terminate the agreement.
[Budget
process clarified throughout by P.L. 2007, ch. 668]
Other
Provisions
Regional
collaborative agreements are encouraged under this law.
The
Department of Education is required to review and critique all unfunded state
mandates pertaining to school systems and report to the Legislature’s Education
Committee by December 15, 2008.
The
Department of Education is required to report to the Legislature’s Education
Committee on implementation of this law and make recommendations on any
proposed legislation needed, by January 31, 2008 (initial report) and December 15, 2008 (final report). At the request of
legislators, the Commissioner has agreed to provide a report to the Committee in
November 2008. [The December 15 date is
amended per P.L. 2007, ch. 668]