BELFAST - The Regional School Unit 20 Board of directors had planned vote Tuesday on withdrawal plans from six towns seeking to leave the district. However, the members pushed the vote back a week when it became apparent that negotiations were ongoing.

Five of the six towns — Belfast, Belmont, Morrill, Searsmont and Swanville — are pursuing a plan to leave the district together and re-form as a new RSU similar to the pre-2009 consolidation SAD 34.

Northport, which was also part of the former SAD 34, has presented a plan centered on a town-run K-8 school, sharing administrative services with Union 69, the primary school district of Appleton, Lincolnville and Union.

From the standpoint of the remaining two towns the RSU 20 board, the situation is similar to a year ago, when the same six towns made an unsuccessful bid to withdraw together.

However the past month has turned into a frantic scramble as withdrawal committees and the board have raced to meet the state Department of Education’s deadline for approved withdrawal plans — a date that was abruptly shifted forward several weeks ago, then amended with extensions that seemed fixed and urgent on paper but have been somewhat flexible in practice.

Attorney Kristen Collins, who represents withdrawal committees of the five-town group and Northport, said the most recent word from DOE is that the towns have 10 days to submit withdrawal plans approved by the RSU 20 board. 

As of Tuesday night, the five-town plans had enough loose ends that Collins asked for a vote at another meeting prior to the DOE deadline.

Northport’s plan had been essentially approved by district negotiators with the exception of one clause on collective bargaining. With two members of the town’s withdrawal committee on hand and agreement on what needed to be changed, Collins suggested that the board at least vote on that plan, including the necessary change.

Board chairman Anthony Bagley, however, disagreed, saying no vote should be taken until the agreements received final approval from town withdrawal committees. 

“To me, there’s no talking after,” he said. “It’s going to be in the withdrawal agreement. We’re going to know everything’s set in stone. We’re not going to [say] ‘We’ll work on it after we vote.’”

Among the sticking points in the five-town agreements was a clause that Collins saw as nullifying withdrawal if the board closed any school buildings before the new district was formed. 

Bagley said the clause, and a similar one that would bar directors from the six towns from voting on the superintendent’s contract in December, were there to protect the school district.

“It’s cover your backside, that’s all it is,” he said, “because anything can change at any time. I wouldn’t have thought the withdrawal would have taken three years. I thought this would have been over with two years ago. But here we are, still at the same point.”

Collins saw the same risk on the other side, if some towns were cut out of important decisions based on plans to withdraw that ultimately failed. In the case of the school closures clause, she saw the potential for opponents to scuttle the withdrawal plans of the six towns after they were approved.

Bagley, Collins and Superintendent Brian Carpenter verbally agreed that a clause prohibiting any vote on school closures until the reorganization was complete would be fair to all parties, and should be written into the final agreements.

Belmont director Stephen Hopkins voiced concern that Belmont could fall into a different trap, namely being left alone if the new five-town district did not open in time. This was according to a high ranking official at DOE, he said.

Collins said she believed DOE officials understood the intent of the five towns’ all-or-nothing contingency and would expect them to follow through with their plan if approved.

“If these towns vote to re-form by Jan 1st, 2015, then there will be a new RSU as of July 1st, 2015, period,” she said. “It’s not a matter of getting the approval and then saying, ‘Aw, we’re not really ready, we don’t have a superintendent,’ or something. We will have to be ready.”

Several board members expressed frustration that the board was hashing out details of the withdrawal agreements after voting at the last meeting to allow the superintendent, board chairman and the district’s legal counsel to negotiate the terms. 

“This withdrawal is sucking our resources as it is, and I’m here to focus on RSU 20 and better things for the kids of RSU 20,” said Searsmont director Valerie Mank. “I’ll vote when I have to, just to move the process along ... so that people can vote in November, but I’m not here for this back and forth.”

Stockton Springs directors Denise Dakin and Maxine Engstrom expressed a similar sentiments.

Belfast director Charles Grey disagreed with bringing the board into the details of the negotiations. He also suggested slowing down the process.

“The RSU was somewhat created as a shotgun marriage,” he said. “And it seems like it’s almost coming down to a shotgun divorce.”

Collins noted that some people on town committees have been working on withdrawal plans for close to three years. 

“Right now, yes, there’s a crunch to get this approval from the DOE,” she said, “but this particular withdrawal effort has been going on now since June [2013].”
 

• Withdrawal committees from the five towns are scheduled to meet collectively at Belfast City Hall, Wednesday, July 9 from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.

• The RSU 20 board will hold a special meeting to consider withdrawal plans, Thursday, July 17 at 6:30 p.m. in the Belfast Area High School band room. 

Ethan Andrews can be reached at news@penbaypilot.com