Bethel
But on key points, Act 46 is vague.
“It doesn’t define what is possible or practicable. That’s kind of our job here today,” State Board of Education Chairwoman Krista Huling said on Tuesday at the start of another marathon meeting for the 11-member body.
The board is tasked with deciding what to do with the 40-some “alternative governance” proposals submitted under the law by districts that haven’t voluntarily merged by now. The secretary of education released a recommended plan earlier this summer, and the board now has until Nov. 30 to make the final call.
Over the course of eight hours, board members meeting in Bethel debated debt, community votes against mergers, geography, and relations between districts.
The board ultimately voted to adopt a short list of principles to guide their decision-making process moving forward, although its members also emphasized the list wasn’t set in stone.
Board members telegraphed that they basically would agree with the secretary’s analysis on the question of which forced mergers weren’t “possible,” or allowed under the law. Those include mergers of districts with different operating structures, inter-state districts or technical centers.
But the question of how to decide whether mergers were “practicable” generated hours of discussion. The board ultimately voted that five scenarios, in some combination, would warrant the body considering –— but not necessarily granting — communities an out from mergers.
Among the Upper Valley communities caught up in the debate are Barnard, Bradford and Newbury, Vt., where the secretary of education has recommended mergers; Sharon, Strafford and Thetford, where a merger has been deemed not legally possible; and Hartland and Weathersfield, where a merger has been deemed not practical.
Potentially impracticable partnerships included:
■Districts where formal agreements and/or processes are already underway to merge.
■Non-contiguous districts, unless communities themselves suggested the partnerships in an alternative governance proposal.
■Cases in which per-pupil spending was greater than 20 percent of the mean per-pupil spending of potential merger partners. Where potential partners had such disparate spending levels, board members said they would consider whether debt precluded a merger.
■Cases in which communities voted against formal merger proposals.
■Cases in which a district or supervisory union was merged within the last two fiscal years and was not a modified unified union school district or non-member elementary district.
A key argument by districts facing potentially forced mergers is that state-imposed consolidations that ignore community votes rejecting those mergers are undemocratic. Board members spent a significant chunk of time on Tuesday talking about how much weight — if any — they should accord these no votes.
The question cuts to the core of why Act 46 was so controversial from the start, but board member Oliver Olsen — a key player in the law’s passage during his time as a state representative — argued that the law was written with teeth for a reason.
Earlier legislative attempts to cajole school districts into merging solely through incentives “quite frankly didn’t work,” he said.
School districts that merged voluntarily during earlier phases of Act 46’s implementation did so because they understood the State Board would if they didn’t, he said. And to exempt school districts who rejected all merger proposals at the ballot box from ultimately consolidating at all would send the wrong message.
“I think there’s an inherent issue of fairness,” he said.
But some board members appeared loath to dismiss votes completely.
“It doesn’t make a difference how many times you voted on that particular question? And how thorough you presented that question to the community? Because I think it does,” board member Mark Perrin said.
The State Board will next meet on Oct. 17, when it may start making preliminary merger decisions on some of the less complicated and controversial configurations.