Regional School District Organization

Summary of Public Comments and Department Responses

Comments regarding the initial adoption of the budget by the school committee [41.05(1)]

Comment: Clarify that the expenditure of funds from the stabilization fund is governed exclusively by the provisions of MGL c.71, s.16G½.

Response: Agreed. The wording in paragraph (e) of this section has been corrected to eliminate the ambiguity.

Comment: Capital expenditures and debt service costs previously approved by the members should not require additional approval as part of the normal budget process.

Response: Even though capital projects often require separate approval processes, the use of general fund revenues to fund these expenditures requires that they be included in the district budget.

Comment: The regulations should require greater consolidation of appropriated and non-appropriated funds in a comprehensive budget presentation.

Comment: It is unnecessary to include information on non-appropriated funds as part of the budget approval process.

Response: The issue of including informational materials on non-appropriated funds elicited a wide range of responses. In general, we believe that members are entitled to full disclosure of relevant financial information when considering a proposed budget. At the same time, we do not want to impose unworkable or burdensome reporting requirements. The wording has been amended to require only a summary of non-appropriated revenues and expenditures, leaving it to each district to determine the appropriate level of detail.

Comment: The calculation of proposed assessments should be done prior to the public hearings.

Response: Agreed. The sequence of steps has been modified.

Comment: The April 30 deadline for submitting a proposed budget to the members (in paragraph (j)), should be extended if the Commissioner has not provided the required local contributions in a timely manner.

Response: The April 30 deadline is statutory and the Department has no authority to extend it. As a practical matter, the Department typically issues its preliminary estimates of required local contributions in January.

Comments regarding the use of the statutory vs. alternative assessment

Comment: The terms "statutory assessment method" and "alternative assessment methoD" should be more clearly defined.

Response: Agreed. Definitions of both terms have been added to 41.01.

Comment: The proposed procedures for choosing which assessment method to use are unworkable, and are likely to result in unnecessary delays and confusion.

Response: Agreed. Under the revised proposal, the school committee will determine which assessment method to use, as part of its adoption of a proposed budget. If the budget is not approved by the members, the school committee may reconsider this determination as part of its reconsideration of the budget as a whole.

Comment: The statute (MGL c.71, s.16B) requires districts electing the alternative assessment method to notify the Commissioner. The regulations should specify the form of such notice.

Response: Agreed. It is our intent to collect this information through the end of year financial returns submitted by each district, and this has been noted in 41.05(2)(c).

Comment: The Department's interpretation of the statutes governing assessment calculations is incorrect.

Response: We recognize that these statutory provisions have been interpreted differently by some organizations and individuals. To date, the Department's interpretation has been upheld by the courts, although some litigation is still pending.

Comment: The Department should defer implementation of the statutory formula because it will create hardships for some communities.

Response: The statutory formula was enacted by the Legislature as part of the 1993 education reform law, and the Department has no legal authority to hold it in abeyance. Even without these regulations, the statutory requirement would still be in effect. The regulations only provide guidance on how to comply with the requirements.

Comments regarding initial action by the local appropriating authorities [41.05(2)]

Comment: Use of the phrase "local appropriating authority" should be clarified, since the accepted usage in this context differs from the definition of the term in the context of Proposition 2½ (MGL c.59 s.21C).

Response: Agreed. The term "local appropriating authority is added to the definitions in 41.01.

Comment: If a member fails to act on a proposed budget, that should be deemed to be approval.

Response: Although we understand the policy reasons for this suggestion, we do not believe there is any basis in statute for such a rule. The only exception is in the situation where the member is considering a revised budget and has previously appropriated an equal or greater amount.

Comments regarding reconsideration of rejected budgets [41.05(3)]

Comment: The correct terminology for the conclusion of a town meeting is dissolution, not adjournment.

Response: Agreed. The terminology has been corrected in 41.05(3)(a).

Comment: For clarity, the district meeting referred to in 41.05(3)(f) should be referred to as a "district-wide" meeting, which is the term typically used.

Response: Agreed. The terminology has been adopted.

Comment: In two-town districts, it would be helpful to permit a second round of reconsideration at town meetings, before having to call a district-wide meeting.

Response: From a policy standpoint, this is a reasonable suggestion for consideration, but we believe it would require a statutory change.

Comments regarding the establishment of budgets by the Commissioner [41.05(4)]

Comment: It should be clarified that municipal action to appropriate funds to pay an assessment ordered by the Commissioner under this section does not constitute approval by the municipality of the district's budget.

Response: Agreed. Wording to that effect has been added at the end of this section.

Comments regarding amendments to approved budgets [41.05(5)]

Comment: Amendments to approved budgets that change the total amount of the budget but do not change the members' assessments should not require approval by the members.

Response: This situation typically arises when state aid or other general fund revenue sources are larger than originally expected. We do not believe there is any statutory authority for the school committee to expend these funds without the approval of the members. The members are entitled to participate in the decision on how those additional revenues are to be used.

Comment: When reconsidering a rejected budget, the regulations state that if a member does not vote on the revision, and if the member has previously appropriated funds for its assessment in an amount greater than or equal to its revised assessment, then the member shall be deemed to have approved the revision. This provision should hold true as well for amendments to previously approved budgets.

Response: Agreed. Parallel language has been added to the section on amendments to approved budgets.

Comment: If assessments need to be revised due to revisions in the state-mandated local contributions, it should not be necessary to seek approval from the members.

Response: As a policy matter, we agree, but in our opinion this would require a statutory change. The current statute states that once a budget is approved, no member's assessment may be increased without its consent (MGL c.71, s.16B), and there is no exception carved out for changes mandated by the state.

Comment: The section dealing with line item transfers should not be in these regulations because this issue impacts local school districts as well as regional districts.

Response: The reason for the inclusion of this section is to clarify that such transfers can be done with a simple majority vote, and do not require the 2/3 vote needed for the initial adoption of a budget. There is no ambiguity for local districts, because the 2/3 vote requirement only applies to regional districts.

State review of district budgets [41.05(8)]

Comment: Time limits should be established for state action under the provisions of this section.

Response: It is the intention of DOR and DOE to invoke these provisions only in rare circumstances, and to act as expeditiously as those circumstances allow. An arbitrary time limit might impede our ability to provide necessary assistance and oversight. After we have had some actual experience in implementing this provision, we can revisit this issue if necessary.

Excess and deficiency funds [41.06]

Comment: School committees need the ability to expend E&D funds for emergencies and other urgent situations that may arise during the year. Requiring town meeting action on every such occasion is unworkable.

Response: From a policy perspective, we agree. From a legal perspective, this is an area that has been the subject of conflicting interpretations in the past, without any definitive adjudication. The amended proposal does not prohibit the continuation of past practice. But it may be useful to seek a statutory amendment to fully put the matter to rest.