In light of the most recent summary judgment, and the conversations that have ensued, I felt it might be beneficial to address some issues that have been left out of the discussion.

Until now, this case has been represented to the public in this manner: In the first year of RSU1, the board made a decision that affected the cost sharing method to the participating municipalities. The interpretation by the board was “wrong,” which resulted in West Bath being overcharged $1.9 million over a period of four years. West Bath is looking to recover the amount that they were overcharged from the municipalities that were undercharged.

This sounds simple and straightforward, right?

If this were the case, it would be simple. But unfortunately, it’s much more complicated than that.

First, the cost-sharing method that was devised for RSU1 (as part of LD910) was one that was created independent of the state and had never been applied in a “real world” application. In theory the LD910 method made good sense, but in application there were unintended consequences. At its core, though, the LD910 method was devised to be fair and equitable to all participating communities. It was not to burden one community at the benefit or expense of another.

Back in 2007-08, the newly-elected school board was a day away from finalizing the first budget when they were asked by the superintendent to make an interpretation of the cost-sharing language. This is not something the board sought out (it was presented to them) and the board was assured they had the authority to make the change. It is important to understand that a school board typically does not (on its own initiative) challenge the cost-sharing method that is used by a district. In most districts around the state, boards and administrations rely upon the state formula (ED279) to divide the majority of costs. This board was focusing on educational policy and trying to understand their role in the operation of a newly-formed school district.

The board, acting in good faith and on the recommendations of the administration, ultimately chose a method (utilizing elements from both ED279 and LD910) that would not jeopardize the subsidy that is generated from the state. This method was discussed and voted on in a public session. And as a result of this choice, all the municipalities of RSU1 paid approximately the same dollars per student for a four-year period. This was a fair outcome, one that reflected the equitable intentions of the original committee that created the cost-sharing method of RSU1. The method used was also clearly outlined in every document that was presented during budget season to all the municipalities.

Then, after four years, the municipalities challenged the method. The board acknowledged this, brought in an attorney, and, based upon that attorney’s decision, applied the LD910 formula to the entire budget. The district applied the new method, as interpreted by the attorney, for one year. Then the Board immediately called all the communities together, and, over six months, devised a cost-sharing method that best served everyone. This cost-sharing committee agreed that the LD910 method was inequitable and, if maintained, would put undue financial burden on some communities. An alternative method was devised and implemented.

What are the financial implications of what transpired? While West Bath claims that they were overcharged $1.9 million, they actually paid (on a per student basis) the same amount as the other municipalities of RSU1. Just comparing West Bath to Phippsburg (because these two towns are similar in terms of student population and total population), let’s look at what each town paid (on a per student basis) during that fouryear period:

Phippsburg paid $9,527 in 2009, $10,580 in 2010, $10,784 in 2011 and $10,466 in 2012.

West Bath paid $8,774 in 2009, $10,104 in 2010, $11,081 in 2011 and $10,630 in 2012.

During that time period, there was less than an $800 difference (per student) between the two communities.

Then, in 2013, RSU1 applied the cost-sharing method that West Bath asserts should have been applied from the beginning (which the courts agree with in the judgment). In this instance, the difference paid between the two communities was more substantial:

In 2013, Phippsburg paid $12,522 and West Bath paid $9,342.

In this case, there was more than a $3,000 difference (per student) between the two communities. This disparity, where West Bath pays less per student that the other communities, would have been consistent over the entire four-year period had the “correct” cost-sharing method been applied.

The courts will sort this out from a legal standpoint. And we can all debate about who said what or who did what. But ultimately the citizens and taxpayers are concerned about equity and what is fair. The intent of the law and the cost-sharing method was to be fair to all communities. The intent was not to place the financial burden on one community over another. Looking at this comparison: Which method is more fair?

As a community, we need to at least recognize, and acknowledge, that the “right” method in this case may not be the “fair” method when it comes to equity. This point has somehow been lost in the discussion. Municipalities have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in this case to determine who is right, but they have somehow missed having the conversation about what is fair. I believe that the citizens of West Bath and, in fact all the citizens of the RSU, want what is fair for the district. I believe members of each municipality feel that they should be responsible for funding the cost of their children, and not expecting others to bear the cost. While the details surrounding this case are complicated and many, the financial implications are clear. So regardless of the outcome — and I will defer to the courts to determine who is “right” and who is “wrong” — let’s not lose sight of what is fair.

———

Tim Harkins is the chairperson of the RSU 1 board.