Board of Ed for April: proposed regulation changes on regional school districts

 Tutwiler: given that today is first month in the roll, allowed a few mistakes (as Craven notes usually there is a meeting before sent out to public comment)
last amended in 2009

Jay Sullivan: DESE finance
Lucy Wall, legal counsel
Christine Lynch: former regional school governance
Michelle Griffin: regional school governance

Sullivan: more technical, as a result as working with the field
asking for things that we didn't think was necessary
"this is really about regional governance"
"these regulations are about regional budgets"

I have lost track of who is talking here., maybe Christine Lynch: Regional school district law first passed in 1949; law itself is really comprised sections MGL 71: 14-16i
58 academic regional districts with 170 cities and towns serving 97,218
26 CTE regional vokes with 235 cities and towns serving 30,901
only 54 municipalities are not in a regional school district
oooo we have maps

regional school districts

regional vo techs

proposals stemming from working with the field:

• Streamlining approval of regional agreements and amending agreements
• Clarifying provisions surrounding creation and approval of regional school budgets
• Clarifying provisions related to Commissioner fiscal oversight
• new provisions on waiver and severability
• technical oversight

Commissioner authority to approve agreements and amendments
towns don't have authority to approve grants or use of revolving funds, just general funds
requirement of who has to vote approval
proposal does not expand statutory authority of Commissioner (which already exists)
last fiscal year, there were two regional school districts without a budget by June 30
both resolved over summer
year before that there was one
department has not had to assume fiscal oversight over past several years as in all cases, resolved prior to December 1
"trying to be responsive to constituents"
"really about formation, amendment, about regional budget proposals"
Sullivan: guilty of bad timing, have been trying to get this done for some time

Craven: was there any feedback prior to coming to Board?
Sullivan: understanding that come to Board first before circulation

Tutwiler: Jay "has never been wrong about anything until now"
"clear embracing of stakeholder engagement over time"
"they're not permitted to circulate regulations ahead of formal proposal here"
right: because they're PART OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS
Tutwiler: has happened over time, over a period of years, have arrived at a point that they're ready to provide changes
going out to public comment then by June 6, board to vote in September
Hills don't have a problem sending out for public comment, don't have an intuitive feel
"have seen this not happen" what is he talking about?
doesn't have a personal perspective on how long it is open

Grant asks if incoming Commissioner might have a perspective, how often guidance is offered or regulations updated
not sure will vote in September

Moriarity: strikes me as a deregulation, rather than new regulation
Compliance with administrative procedure act
putting forward a well thought proposal, not a half baked one
might want to look at process
what if we delayed?
Sullivan: we don't know how many districts want updates or need budget intervention
these processes take years, it's a long process
"will that have a negative impact on what we're trying to do? We've been offering this way since 2009"
Moriarty: point you make is a solid one, we'll get this feedback
if feedback is broadly negative, we'll take several steps back
West: good practice to have a meeting before the meeting to go to public comment
then is a public document
West motion, second

Hills: do you have a view on time?
amends to make public comment 
Wall: June 6 is the law: it is 21 day public comment period
Hills: want to have 60 days, want to make that the standard
also gives new Commissioner a chance to do this
we think he cares? These are TECHNICAL CHANGES.
Hills: this is talking more than we talk about process
Grant: we should talk about it
are we using minimum comment of 21 days or increase it, should spend time discussing process