Appendix C

Program Review Committee Survey Results

In its evaluation of Regional School District Governance, the program review committee surveyed local officials, including chief elected officials (45 First Selectmen and two Mayors) and 43 local fiscal authorities (43 Board of Finance chairpersons and two town councils)⁸ in towns belonging to regional school districts. The 17 regional school board chairpersons were sent a separate, more extensive survey. The purpose of the survey was to solicit opinions and other information from elected local and regional public officials regarding regional school governance. Specifically, survey questions encompassed three broad areas including the:

• opinions on the fairness of the statutory formula mandating local share of education costs;
• information on regional school board operations, including the process used by boards in developing regional school budgets, strategic planning and the conduct of audits; and
• types of communication between the regional board and elected officials from member towns.

The survey sent to first selectmen and board of finance chairs contained 26 questions and the committee received a response rate of 87 percent, and 76 percent respectively. The survey of regional school board chairs asked 40 questions with an 82 percent response rate. Highlights of the survey responses, as well as aggregated results by type of elected office held are presented below.

Regional School District Highlights

Although regional school board chairs and local officials received different surveys, many of the survey questions asked were identical and concerned regional boards budget practices, long term capital planning process, and the extent of communication with and types of fiscal information provided to elected town officials. In analyzing the responses, program review committee staff found several inconsistencies between the responses of local officials and regional board chairs to identical survey questions. Furthermore, the responses of town officials in the same regional school district to factual questions on regional board practices were also compared, and even these responses differed.

It is important to remember that regional boards of education are autonomous and there is no mandate for them to include, in any way, officials from member towns in any board deliberations. However, the reasons for the inconsistencies in the survey responses, given the factual nature of the questions, are puzzling to committee staff. Nevertheless, the contradictions do illustrate the divergent perceptions that exist among all surveyed parties, in the types and level of communication between town officials and regional boards. The variation also is an indication of the different working relationships that the various boards have with elected town officials in their regions. Finally, it may also show the level of importance that both parties place on intergovernmental participation, and the impression each has on the willingness of the other elected body to communicate.

An example of the response variation can be demonstrated by examining one survey question concerning the regional school board budget process. Both regional board of education chairs and local officials were surveyed on whether local officials were invited to participate in the budget process, and if so, at what stage. Of the 14 regional board chairs that responded to the survey:

• five regional boards asked town officials to participate either prior to and/or during the budget development process, as well as following the public hearing on the budget but before it was presented for vote;
• nine regional boards invited town official participation during the budget development phase and prior to the public hearing; and
• no regional board has town officials participate in the budget revision process, if the budget was rejected at the town meeting or referendum and needs to be resubmitted to the voters
• all regional board chairs stated that town officials were asked to participate at some stage in the process.

However, if responses from town officials are compared to those of the regional board chairpersons regarding town official participation:

• five towns in four different regional districts that responded to the survey, said they were not invited to participate (two other town officials indicated they also were not invited to participate, however, the regional district chair did not submitted a survey response so a comparison could not be done); and
• although all regional board chairs stated that town officials were not invited to participate in budget revisions if voters rejected a budget, 10 towns in nine regional districts said they were invited to participate at this stage in the process.

Another factual survey question that produced divergent responses was whether the regional board conducts formal long-range capital planning. Eleven of the 14 regional board chairs responded to the survey question affirmatively; while three board chairs stated that no formal planning occurs. However, 13 towns in seven of the regional districts that replied in the affirmative, stated the regional board does not conduct long-range planning. The discrepancy in these responses again illustrates the lack of communication between the regional board and elected town officials.

Description of Relationship between Boards and Local Town Officials

Some survey questions asked local officials and regional board chairpersons' to provide their opinion on the relationship between elected officials in member towns and the regional board. Table C-1 shows that the vast majority of regional board chairs (93 percent) would characterize the relationship as "good" or "average", while almost half of the responses from the boards of finance indicated the relationship was "below average" or "poor." Responses received from board of finance chairpersons in at least one of the member towns in eight of the regional school districts described the relationship as "below average" or "poor".

Town Withdrawal From or Dissolution of a Regional School District.

The survey also queried elected officials on whether a town should be able to withdraw from a regional school district without the approval of other towns in the district. Affirmative responses were as follows:

• 36 percent of boards of finance;
• 50 percent of first selectmen; and
• 21 percent of regional school board chairs.

⁸ Four towns belonging to Regional School Districts do not have boards of finance. Of these, two towns have town councils. Only one town council responded to the survey, and this response was included, for purposes of analysis, as a board of finance response. The other two towns have a selectmen-town meeting form of government and thus, no board of finance responses were provided.