[S]enate lawmakers took a first look Tuesday at revised legislation granting school districts a one-year extension from forced mergers under Act 46. And, in principle, it would allow the vast majority of school boards the option to take the extra time.
But there’s a catch.
The bill, as proposed by Senate Education Committee chair Sen. Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden, would require new unified school boards to decide whether to delay – not existing independent boards.
Baruth told his fellow lawmakers in committee Tuesday he understood some of them didn’t think any districts should get more time, while others favored giving a blanket delay to all who wanted it. His proposal, he said, attempted to find a “reasonable middle ground.”
“Which is: give people more time, but the assumption is that people are working toward fulfilling (Act 46) and so it’s not crazy to expect them to elect that board,” he said.
Since the beginning of the session, a tripartisan coalition of lawmakers have been lobbying their peers to delay mergers under Act 46. They argue the timelines in the end-stages of the law allow for too little time to do complicated work, but also that the courts should have a chance to weigh in before mergers are put into place. Three lawsuits have been filed challenging the law.
In early February, the House greenlighted a plan that would delay mergers for about half of districts. Hoping that Superior Court Judge Robert Mello would issue a ruling that would take the question out of their hands, Senate lawmakers had, until now, postponed taking up the subject.
Creating unified districts in the context of state-imposed mergers is a complicated multi-step process, and the state is worried districts resisting forced mergers who are putting off the work of unification could quickly run out of time. Baruth’s plan, in many ways, is an explicit attempt to get those districts most reluctant to merge to do the minimum necessary to set the foundation for consolidation.
To merge, first, school boards from all of the forming districts must nominate members to sit on a transitional board. That transitional board is then tasked with warning an election for the “initial board” of the unified district. That initial board, once seated, can then adopt a unified budget to put before voters. Under existing timelines in law, unified districts are supposed to be operational July 1.
Hoping that a judge would grant them an injunction and stay merger activity, several school districts have thus far refused to seat a transitional board. Early last week, meanwhile, Mello said that injunction wouldn’t be forthcoming, and in a 25-page order, intimated strongly he wasn’t likely to rule in favor of the school boards challenging Act 46. A final ruling in the case is expected in early summer, and is likely to be appealed to the state’s Supreme Court.
Following Mello’s ruling, the Agency of Education issued its own guidance, urging districts to quickly seat their transitional boards and begin the work of merging before time ran out.
As the law currently stands, the agency argues new unified districts will find themselves unable to operate come July 1 without a voter-approved budget. (Existing law allows for default budgets in situations in which voters reject all spending plans put before them before the start of a new fiscal year. But the agency says that statute doesn’t apply to newly formed districts that have no prior year’s budget.)
“What we are asking for here is what (Agency of Education) is saying anyways. Which is: form your initial boards,” Baruth said.
The committee will take testimony on the proposal throughout the next few days, and is expected to take a vote and send something to the floor by the end of the week. Provided the committee’s proposal gets the support of the Senate, Baruth said leadership in both chambers will fast-track the legislation to get it to the governor’s desk as quickly as possible.
