Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Withdrawal Proposals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 03 board pushes back on Liberty and Waldo withdrawal proposals; legal review paused over counsel conflict
Summary
RSU 03 trustees said the withdrawal proposals from Liberty and Waldo contain unresolved issues and paused a joint legal review because their law firm also represents some towns involved; the board voted to permit a review process while seeking clearer, agreed‑upon proposals.
Board members on RSU 03/MSAD 03 said they will not accept the Liberty withdrawal proposal "as it is currently written," and they paused portions of the review while clarifying whether the district’s counsel can represent all parties. The board’s chair said administrators forwarded both towns’ proposals to Drummond Woodsome for legal review but raised a conflict‑of‑interest concern because the firm also represents Belfast and RSU 12, towns that are party to the withdrawal discussions.
At the meeting the chair said the district is prepared to work through the process but wants any submission to the state commissioner to be an agreed proposal from both RSUs. "RSU3 is not going to be agreeable to this document as it is currently written," the chair said, noting staff and the board subcommittee will gather accurate financial and programmatic information before making further public presentations. The chair also said Carol McGovern had forwarded a withdrawal proposal to the commissioner for early review.
Board members debated whether to allow the same firm to provide guidance to all parties; one motion to permit Drummond Woodsome to proceed with review passed by show of hands (7–0). Administrators said if the board objects to the firm’s representation the district will seek alternative counsel, though that could delay the process and require counsel less familiar with withdrawal procedures.
The chair reminded members that, under statute, a town withdrawal triggers a formal multi‑step review process by the commissioner, citing statute 20 (subsection 1466), and said the board wants accurate cost and funding information before committing to any public presentations or numbers. He asked the administration to return with clarified financial figures and funding‑formula options for the full board and subcommittee to review.
Next steps: RSU 03 staff and the board’s withdrawal subcommittee will continue collecting data and counsel guidance; the board signaled it prefers a mutually agreed withdrawal proposal before forwarding documents for state review.
