Trego's Mountain Ear

"Serving North Lincoln County"

Tag: School Board

  • Our School District is 80% Unified

     This article is excerpted from a report I made to Trego’s school board several years ago.  I don’t have an answer to what went on when Eureka Elementary and Lincoln County High Schools were unified by election in 1988 – the relevant board minutes were missing, and Joel and I were unable to find them. 

    I began looking for data when I read of Eureka’s Elementary district’s inability to pass a levy for a new school building – the suggested alternatives included getting the high school to build a new school, and passing the existing high school on to the elementary district.  While it was offered as an “out of the box” solution, it has been done before – the Lincoln County High School I attended is now the Eureka middle school.

    As a Trego taxpayer, I have the privilege of supporting LCHS and Trego Elementary – but when LCHS buildings go to Eureka Elementary, we Trego residents have effectively been taxed to support Eureka Elementary as well as Trego Elementary.  (Joel tells me that Eureka Elementary paid LCHS a fair price for the old high school – but as I rewrite these notes, I still don’t know what the fair price was.  Trego and Fortine districts provide about 20% of the High School tax base.  Turning the old high school into the middle school is a great deal for Eureka – but may have been unjust taxation for Fortine and Trego landowners. I have assurances that that is not the case – but I do not have figures that allow me to do my own calculations.

    Understanding the significance requires data.  And that data is available at https://svc.mt.gov/dor/property/cov#/256 where the state shows market and taxable values for each district.  To minimize the data dazzle, I will attempt to explain using only the market values of District 13 elementary and District 13 high school, then converting them to percentages for ease of understanding.  (this data is from my original report to the Trego board, and is not current)

    High School District                                1,375,196,172

    Elementary District                                 1,108,162,025

    Subtracting the elementary market value from the high school market value shows that 2,670,341, or 19.4% of the property tax values going to LCHS are from Fortine and Trego districts.   The decisions on running the high school are made by five board members elected from the Eureka elementary district – the appearance of representation for Fortine and Trego is a member from each small district, outvoted at the best, and, at the worst a pair with Quisling quality loyalty to the communities they represent.

    I believe that the codes mandate that the Fortine district trustee be voted in by Fortine, and Trego’s trustee be voted in only by Trego voters – but I have found no evidence that elections have occurred in that manner.

    I have been gathering data to better understand the governance of Lincoln County High School over the past three years.  It is a bit perplexing . . . LCHS has, throughout my lifetime, been closely related to Eureka Elementary.  When I attended LCHS, the cafeteria was over in the Roosevelt building.  Roger Ranta was superintendent over both LCHS and Eureka Elementary.  The lines of demarcation were never well defined.  In many ways, LCHS and Eureka Elementary have behaved as a unified district over at least the past sixty years – but with lip service toward recognizing the outlying districts (now only Fortine and Trego) as part of Lincoln County High School’s district and independent of Elementary 13.

    MCA 20-6-101-3(4) states “As used in this title, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, a county high school is a high school district that has not unified with an elementary district under 20-6-312.  The context of the name “Lincoln County High School” does not clearly (or even murkily) indicate unification with Eureka Elementary.  I suspect that this section of the law was why discussion of the need to change the high school’s name was reported in the Mountain Ear when the unification was discussed in 1988.  (Joel tells me that the two districts are not unified, but that they operate together under a memorandum of agreement)

    I began searching for documentation of unification when I read that comment in the Mountain Ear archives.  I now have a copy of the April 20, 1988 letter to the trustees of Eureka Elementary, District 13 from Cindy Middig, then Lincoln County Superintendent of Schools.   That letter begins: “Congratulations on the success of your unification election” then gives instructions on actions that need to be completed before July 1st, 1988. 

    Since Eureka/LCHS does not term itself a “Unified District” while Libby does, I am assuming that a more detailed review of the LCHS minutes, or the Lincoln County Superintendent’s correspondence will unearth more relevant information.  Middig’s letter ends with “The additional high school trustee nominating areas (the 3 outlying districts) will remain the same.  The trustees presently representing them, Mrs. Lora Johnson (Trego), Mrs. BeeGee Cole (Fortine) and Penny Williams (Rexford) are hereby appointed to hold office until a successor is elected and qualified at the next regular school election in April of 1989.”

    The fortunate thing is that BeeGee Cole and Ted Roo (LCHS board chair at the time) live.  When I called BeeGee she recalled being appointed to the High School board to represent Fortine, but had no firm recollection of anything being done to unify the districts.  She explained to me that she was a Fortine board member and sent by the board to represent the Fortine District at the LCHS board meetings.  This differs substantially from the role Marcy Butts  filled on the LCHS board, and it appears that change is a result of Cindy Middig’s letter.  It appears that Middig did not consider that her change to the board structure would essentially create a taxation without representation situation when the Eureka Elementary Board could vote to take high school properties that were 20% funded by Fortine and Trego.

    I spoke with Ted Roo, whose recollection was that Cindy Middig’s letter removed all the high school board members and gave all the authority over the school to the elementary board.  From Ted’s recollections, we can point to April 20, 1988 as the time when the event occurred.  (Ted only served on the high school board, and ceased being a board member with Middig’s letter.)  If Ted’s recollections are correct, we need to see if “The Lincoln County High School Trustees” performed all the requirements for the first transaction listed in Middag’s letter.

    Since the May 16, 1988 minutes show LCHS board members Ted Roo, Lora Johnson, Penny Williams, L. Jack Higle, Andy Ivers and BeeGee present, we need only review the minutes from that date through July, 1988 to determine if the LCHS board completed that required transaction before July 1, 1988.  My reading of the Middig Unification letter is that, if that transaction was not performed by the LCHS board before July 1, the unification did not legally occur.  The old Mountain Ear article pointed out that there was a discussion that the name of the high school would be changed – yet it remains Lincoln County High School.  The unchanged name suggests that there is a significant possibility that the requirements listed by Middig were not performed.

    If those three specific actions Middig’s letter says were required before unification could occur were never done, as I read the letter, the unification was never completed.  Yes, that would create a challenge to getting LCHS a high school board after the Elementary board has controlled both operations for 35 years – but I know of no statute of limitations that forces us to accept governmental misconduct or blunders.  MCA 20-6-312 lists the requirements for County high school unification.  20-6-313 seems to support Middig’s instructions: “(1) Whenever a county high school is unified with the elementary district where the county high school building is located, the following transactions must be completed on or before the July 1 when the unification becomes effective:”

    Since the High School continues to operate as Lincoln County High School, which name does not clearly indicate the unification with Eureka Elementary, and after talking with then LCHS board chair Ted Roo, I have questions on whether those required transactions occurred – the LCHS name continuation suggests that there is, at the least, some probability that the Middig letter unified the districts, but the other activities that were required to occur before July 1, 1988 did not.

    I (along with Superintendent Joel Graves reviewed the records from May 16, 1988 through August, 1988, and we were unable to find the minutes that described the board activities to complete the following transactions required in Supt. Middig’s letter:

    1.         The Lincoln County High School trustees shall surrender all minutes, documents, and other records to the trustees of the “new” high school district.

    2.         The county treasurer, after allowing for any outstanding or registered warrants, shall transfer all end-of-year fund cash balances of the county high school to similar refunds established for the high school district.  All previous years’ taxes levied and collected for the county high school shall be credited to the appropriate fund for the high school district.

    3.         The board of county commissioners shall execute, in the name of the county, all necessary and appropriate deeds, bills of sale and other instruments for the conveyance of title to all real and personal property of the county high school, including all appurtenances and hereditaments, to the high school district.

    Another necessary search through Eureka’s records is to determine the circumstances of the transfer of the old high school building from LCHS to the Eureka elementary district.  If the LCHS board was eliminated – and I trust Ted Roo and his memory – the Eureka Elementary board held five of the votes that transferred the county high school to the Eureka Elementary District.

    I asked Suzy Rios, Lincoln County Superintendent of Schools, to search her department’s records from May 16, 1988 to August 1, 1988 to see if documentation exists that provides further information on the unification election – but I suspect that the county superintendent’s record went the same way as Extensions – and I disposed of Extensions records when they had been spoiled by years of a sewage leak in the annex basement.  

     Middig did not complete her term of office, and was replaced by Mary Hudspeth as County superintendent of schools.  The dates when Cindy Middag left the office and Mary Hudspeth came in may explain some of my confusion.  (At Trego, we are missing our 1988 and 89 board minutes)

    If neither Superintendent can find evidence that the LCHS board took the action Superintendent Middag required, our next step is to ask Sedaris Carlson (County Treasurer) to see if those actions required of the county treasurer occurred.  If they did, it is evidence that the unification occurred.  If not, it supports the null hypothesis.  Again, 1988 was early in computer evolution – any records will be on paper, and have long been stashed away somewhere.

    We can also check the county commission’s records for the same time period to see if their required actions were performed.  Their minutes for the middle of 1988 will show, or not show, if they did what they were required to do.

    As I understand it, if Superintendent Middig’s letter stood without negation,  we have a high school that is unified with part, but not all, of its constituent elementary districts.  Since Fortine and Trego both exist as independent districts, Eureka elementary has essentially been granted power to tax both Fortine and Trego for the high school district, then turn the high school property over to the elementary district.  If I recall correctly, taxation without representation was the impetus behind the American revolution.  This situation also suggests that if the unification did occur, Cindy Middig did not correctly consider representation and taxation of Fortine and Trego – which is probably a constitutional issue.

    My conversations with BeeGee and Ted leads me to these tentative (and testable) assumptions:

    1. Prior to the unification vote the outlying districts assigned board members to the LCHS board.  This makes sense in terms of communication both ways.
    2. The unification vote that was announced as a success by Supt. Middig was partially enacted – the high school board was replaced by Eureka Elementary’s board, plus a mandated representative from Fortine and from Trego.  Rexford later entered Eureka as a consolidation – ownership of Rexford school and its history may show something:  If the necessary transactions were completed, the building would have been property of the consolidated district when Eureka took over Rexford district.  Additional research needs to be done on the old high school.  Joel explained that Eureka Elementary bought the old high school building from LCHS – that can provide a great deal of light to the questions.  If it was purchased from LCHS, that indicates that there is no unified district.  If it was sold at less than fair market value, that indicates the high school and elementary districts were acting as a unified district to the economic disadvantage of Fortine and Trego taxpayers.  If the building was still owned by LCHS, it strongly suggests that the transactions Superintendent Middig demanded were not completed.
    1. Whether LCHS and Eureka Elementary are unified or not, the LCHS board is set up to exploit Trego and Fortine.  I cannot even vote against the Eureka board member who votes to finance a new high school and sell the existing building to Eureka Elementary for $100 the minute the high school bonds are paid off . . . and a single Trego rep, not even connected with Trego’s board can’t change that.  A governing board with five votes out of seven can institute a policy that elementary students can be transported by high school buses from Trego, through Fortine, to Eureka Elementary.  This amount of power over the two small districts that Cindy Middig granted to Eureka Elementary seems not only unconscionable, but unconstitutional. 

    My thanks to Joel Graves and Suzy Rios for their help in reviewing the records – and demonstrated the old research adage: “Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    Our high school board is not (and has not been for over 35 years) matching this description:

    Montana Code Annotated 2023

    TITLE 20. EDUCATION

    CHAPTER 3. ELECTED OFFICIALS

    Part 3. School District Trustees

    Membership Of Elected Trustees Of County High School District And Nomination Of Candidates

    20-3-356. Membership of elected trustees of county high school district and nomination of candidates. (1) The trustees of a county high school district must include the following:

    (a) four trustee positions filled by members residing in the elementary district where the county high school building is located; and

    (b) three trustee positions filled by members one of whom resides in each of the three trustee nominating districts in the territory of the high school district outside of the elementary district where the county high school building is located. The county superintendent shall establish the nominating districts, and, unless it is impossible, the districts must have coterminous boundaries with elementary district boundaries.

    (2) The provisions of 20-3-305 govern the nomination of candidates for the trustee election prescribed in this section.

  • Trego School Board Meeting April 8th

    I’m having trouble summarizing this one, not least because I lost my notes. In short: The meeting did discuss prayer, but did not discuss a four day week.

    About prayer: The discussion was specifically with regards to having prayer on the agenda as a part of each school board meeting. The result- no.

    Community presence and involvement: High. It was a very crowded parking lot. For as heated a topic as it is, everyone was remarkably polite. Arguments did stray beyond the scope of ‘prayer in the board meeting’ to ‘prayer in school’ fairly frequently, and got a bit personal at times.

    My impression: We are really fortunate in the community we have. Prayer in school is, to steal a phrase, “Trolling for Lawsuits”; It’s a legally risky topic.

    But the people that would have grounds for the lawsuit were at that meeting asking the board not to do it. All they would have had to do to win a lawsuit (civil rights violations pay triple damages!) was do nothing, wait for the next meeting, and file. And they showed up to try to keep the school from making a mistake anyway. Wow.

    Ina perfect world, you should walk out from a public meeting with the sense that everyone there is trying to do the morally correct thing. This one felt that way, though there were clearly some deep divides on what the morally correct thing was. In the end, the board decided to avoid having prayer on the agenda.

  • Taxing for the Building Reserve Fund

    When we started the special levy for Trego School’s Building Reserve Fund, in 2021, the levy was 2.88 mills and raised about $5,000.  There are two reasons why a school needs a special levy for the building reserve – first, the building reserve doesn’t have to be spent during the fiscal year.  The fund can continue to grow and eventually have enough for the big ticket items (roofs seem to be a large expense when they need replacement.  The second reason – in Trego the School Major Maintenance Aid kicks in about $12,000 to go along with the $5,000 your taxes raise. 

    When we can raise $17,000 for adding a tax levy that brings in $5,000 – it kind of makes sense.  Our Building Reserve Levy is a fairly new thing for Trego School – and hopefully, five or ten years down the road, when the building needs a major repair, the Building Reserve will cover it.  The school was federally funded as part of the impact funding when the tunnel and railroad relocation came in – but that was back in 1966.  The building is aging, and it seems more responsible to keep it in shape – the Federal government won’t come by with a new one again.

    In 2021, it took 2.88 mills to raise that $5,000.  Now, in 2024, the levy is down to 1.96 mills.  At first glance, the levy is down 32% – but that doesn’t speak to financial management.  The levy still raises about $5,000 – but the taxable evaluation of the land has increased, so a lower mill rate raises the same amount.  The problem with tax rates is that the figures don’t lie.

    I kind of like the building reserve – but just because the mill rate has gone down, the taxes stay the same.  And that’s OK if you take the time to understand how mills and tax levies work.

  • HB 408 Means We Need Better School Board Members, Teachers and Administrators

    HB 408 created the Innovative Education Program Tax Credit which “is available to taxpayers who donate to Montana public school districts (PSD) for the purpose of providing supplemental funding to the school districts for innovative educational programs (IEC).”

    Montana’s 2023 tax rates ran from 1% to 6 ¾ % (kicking in at $21,6010), so it isn’t particularly hard to find people who could make a thousand or two contribution to the school, then get it back come tax time.  The new law creates a way to increase school funding with individual donations instead of trying to pass another levy.  Like the headline says – we need better school board member, teachers and administrators to take advantage of this opportunity.  The challenge here is that the law limits these donations to 5 million per year – which kind of says the schools that already have boards, teachers and administrators who think outside the box are going to get this new source of funding.

    Schools that lack folks with that sort of thinking are going to get what the  littlest pig got. 

    School districts have to register for an account on the Education Donation Portal to accept donations eligible for the tax credits.

    Innovative Educational Programs are defined as “an advanced academic program that enhances the curriculum or academic program of an eligible public school.  They can include:

    • Transformational learning (20-7-1602 MCA)
    •  Advanced Opportunity (20-7-1503 MCA)
    • Any program, service, instructional methodology, or adaptive equipment used to expand opportunity for a child with a disability (20-7-401 MCA)
    • Any courses provided through work-based learning partnerships for post secondary credit or career certification
    • Technology enhancements
    • Capital improvements and equipment necessary to support innovative educational programs

    More data is available from the folks at Montana Department of Revenue: 406-444-6900.

  • Prioritizing School Decisions

    Prioritizing School Decisions

    I’ve noticed articles about school board activities in different parts of the nation.  As I have thought about things, I’m tempted to alter Clauswitz’ quote – “Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult”

    I came on to Trego’s school board when we had 4 ANB – that’s an abbreviation for Average Number Belonging.  It’s defined in 20-9-311 in Montana Codes Annotated.  It means we were just about out of business.  A couple years later, we have the school back in business, but even the simplest thing is difficult.  Here’s where you learn to count students and figure out funding.

    Deciding what to do as a school board member is very simple – but the way a school functions makes the simplest of things difficult.  I’ve developed a priority list to help make decisions.

    1. Is this decision in the student’s best interest?
    2. Is this decision in the school’s best interest?
    3. Is this decision in the community’s best interest?
    4. Is this decision in the employees’ best interest?
    5. Is this decision in the board and board members’ best interest?

    The students’ best interests come first.  My own priorities are that learning needs to be enjoyable and that academics comes first among student activities.  I see room for athletics and special events – but those are secondary.  A simple thing, made difficult by conflicting or undecided priorities.

    The school, as a local institution, and building comes second.  Our school at Trego was built in the mid-sixties, to Corps of Engineers standards.  It has lasted a half-century without a fund dedicated to a planned maintenance schedule.  I’ve seen century-old schools in good shape in their second century, and 50 year-old buildings demolished due to poor maintenance.   Our facility was built by an earlier generation, and needs to be maintained for the future.  A simple thing – but the building has no voice and maintenance can always be put off until later.

    The Trego community and residents who fund the school come third. Don’t take this out of context because the staff comes fourth.  If they aren’t working for those first three priorities, we have a problem.  Teachers, janitor, cook, clerk, bus driver are all needed.  This is the personnel management spot, where conflict and strife combine to make even the simple things difficult.

    Board members individually and as a group have the lowest priority.  We are unpaid and ideally the positions should be sought as a civic responsibility. 

    Everything that comes before your school board is very simple – but even the simplest thing is difficult. 

  • Homeless Students

    Spending time on the school board provides a lot of information.  Some goes into the brain and must be forgotten unless a later incident brings it up.  Some are opinions that seem irrelevant, but are important to the person sharing them.  Recently, I’ve learned that a student can have a home but still be homeless.

    Part of it is a social thing.  People like to own their own piece of the west – and raw land, particularly when it is less accessible and remote from the electric grid, is more affordable.  Here is the publication that defines homeless for Montana’s Office of Public Instruction:

    OPI Guidance for Substandard Housing Determination (Unsheltered) for Students Identified as Homeless 

    Homeless Liaisons should consider multiple factors when determining if a family’s or unaccompanied  youth’s situation meets the criteria of homelessness due to substandard housing.

    • Home must have a solid foundation and a roof that does not leak
    • Security locks must be on all exterior entrance doors
    • Home must be free from insect or rodent infestation
    • Home should have no more than five unrelated persons living in a single-family dwelling, or no more than two family members for each bedroom in the home
    • Each room must have a window or duct to provide ventilation, and interior air must be free of harmful pollutants such as mold
    • Home must have electric service and at least one electric outlet in each room
    • Home must have adequate heating facilities, and hot and cold running water
    • Home must have a separate kitchen and bathroom, each with an operational sink
    • Kitchen must have space for storage, preparation, and serving of food, including a refrigerator and stove or range with oven
    • At least one bathroom must have a bathtub or shower, flush toilet, sink, and offer privacy
    • Every sleeping room must have a window or door providing access to the outside

    Additional factors that should be considered:

    • The family’s financial situation and ability to obtain suitable housing
    • The overall care of the children, including personal hygiene, cleanliness of clothing, nutrition, and healthcare

    *Adapted from guidelines from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

    It seems a bit unreal to live in a community where a family can pay over $1000 per year in property taxes, and find that their child is homeless.  Still, if you can own your home, free and clear, and still be homeless, it does say something about equality.