Reconsideration of S.A.D. cost sharing formula

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) I f I • ' I STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUGUSTA, MAINE 04330 '-j' ~./ HtcllAHU S. Gou EN ATTORNEY GENE.RAL September 19, 1979 The Honorable James K. McMahon State Representative Box 125 Kennebunk, Maine 04043 Re: Reconsideration of S.A.D. Cost Sharinp, Formula Dear Representative McMahon: This is in response to the several questions you raised in your letter of September 12, 1979. Your first question inquires as to whether the language in 20 M.R.S.A. §305 would allow a municipal officer to vote by proxy or to cast an absentee ballot at the meeting authorized in the third paragraph of §305. The specific language in the third para- graph of §305 states that "any change in the method of sharing costs must first be approved b~ a vote of _ii 3 of t~ose present and voting." (Ernp 1as1.s supplie--ay- The Legislature thereby authorized only those individuals who ar~ present to be able to vote on the proposed change. With that legisla- tive limitation, a mu.nicipal officer who is unable to attend the meeting is not authorized to send a proxy or to vote by absentee ballot. The second question you have raised is whether the vote cast by 2/3 of those present and voting must be cast in accordance with the weighted vote which the school administrative district's board of directors utilize. Again, the Legislature has been very specific as to how the vote would be cast at the meeting authorized in the third paragraph of §305 and there is no reference to a weighted vote being utilized. Rather, it appears that the Legisla- ture has granted each participant an equal voice in the vote. f f The Honorable James K. McMahon Page Two September 19, 1979 The final question you have raised is whether a teacher, who is a municipal officer, is eligible to participate in the meeting outlined in the third paragraph of §305. Since 30 M.R.S.A. §2251.4 speci- fically authorizes a municipal officer to hold a teacher's contract with the municipality which he serves, it wciuld appear that there is less chance of a conflict of interest if the municipal officer is teaching in the district which serves the muni- cipality. In effect, there is an additional buffer zone between the teacher/municipal officer and the affairs of the school administrative district which serves the municipality. Since there does not appear to be any conflict of interest for the teacher to serve as a municipal officer of one of the member municipalities of the school administrative district, then it would appear that the teacher is authorized to fulfill his municipal officer's duties in accordance with the third paragraph of §305. In reaching this conclusion, we would note that it is unlikely that the teacher/municipal officer would have any special pecuniary interest in the outcome of the cost-sharing vote by virtue of his or her position as a teacher. · Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter. RSC:ks s1· ry'cere ly, j I i l l , 1 ' 11 LI ;; \LJ __ Ar/ )z /~_/ty(o4/\__. RICHARDS. COHEN Attorney General