Baker, N. Powder districts seek delay on ESD mergers

Superintendents of the Baker, North Powder and Pine-Eagle school districts had hoped to continue what they say is a more successful system of serving their students rather than joining another Education Service District should the Union-Baker ESD be disbanded in the coming year.

To accomplish that goal, the superintendents proposed in an Oct. 27 letter to Susan Castillo, state schools superintendent, that a two-year moratorium be placed on the ESD merger plan and that the districts be allowed to prove their findings in a two-year pilot project.

The state gave little reason for them to maintain those hopes in a letter faxed to the three districts Tuesday.

That’s a shame, says Baker Superintendent Don Ulrey, because the consortium has saved the districts tens of thousands of dollars and has improved services to students over the past three years.

Under the consortium, state and federal money has been funneled from the UBESD to the South Consortium districts. The funds have been used to provide special education services, diagnostics and speech and language services. The districts also have contracted with St. Elizabeth Health Services for physical therapy and occupational therapy for students.

Because of its location, the Burnt River School District is considering joining the Malheur ESD under the reorganization plan, Ulrey said, action the other three districts hope to avoid.

Ulrey said he and his fellow superintendents, Pine-Eagle’s Mike Corley and North Powder’s Lance Dixon, will meet with legislators and others in the coming months with the goal of finding some way for the consortium to continue.

“We’re just trying to hunker down and save as much money as we can and this seems to be one way to do that,” Ulrey said.

In their letter to Castillo, the superintendents wrote:

“The school districts in our area ... can prove that a merger will cause component districts to spend significantly more and unnecessary taxpayers’ dollars to serve the children of their respective districts. The three South Consortium districts have provided the normal ESD services to the districts through a direct flow-through of funds, resulting in better services at a significantly lower cost to the districts.”

In the letter the three superintendents contend that:

•The administrative costs, salaries and benefits paid by ESDs to their employees are much higher than the consortium districts.

•District programs and staffing are more effective and efficient than the UBESD’s.

•The cost analysis of each of the three district’s special education programs are significantly lower than the comparable cost of those same services from the UBESD.

•An ESD cannot perform or provide similar services at our costs or lower.  The neighboring ESDs need to show an efficiency model with actual dollar amounts for the same services provided by the South Consortium.

• The three districts do not have funding to pay for the extra cost of an ESD delivery system.

• The proposal (to maintain the South Consortium) embeds the current delivery system after three years of successful delivery at a significantly lower cost and would not be necessary if the Union-Baker ESD was not in serious financial trouble from past transgressions requiring the ESD to dissolve itself.

“At a time when all of us are facing a financial crisis in our communities, no one should expect school districts to pay more for services they can provide for themselves at significantly reduced prices,” the superintendents wrote.