---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty-eighth Legislature – First Regular Session
SCHOOL DISTRICT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 3 -- 2:00 p.m.
Chairman Martin Shultz called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Vicki Anderson George Martinez
Jay Blanchard Dave Naugle
Dr. Sandra Dowling Thomas Schoaf
Doris Goodale Kent Scribner
Art Harding Joseph Thomas
Rita Leyva Martin Shultz, Chairman
Phil Sauceman, Superintendent, Mohave Valley School District No. 16
John F. Schmadeke, Assistant Superintendent, Agua Fria High Union School District
Julianne Lein, Assistant Supintendent, Litchfield School District
Ken Behringer, General Counsel, Legislative Council
Gretchen Kitchel, Senior Public Affairs Representative, Arizona Public Service Company
Dianne Smith, Executive Director, Greater Phoenix Educational Management Council
Tom Freeland, representing himself
Evelyn Shapiro, representing herself
Phil Sauceman, Superintendent, Mohave Valley School District No. 16, explained the Resolution adopted by the Governing Board of Mohave Valley Elementary School District on December 7, 2006, a copy of which was distributed to all present (Attachment 1). Chairman Shultz stated the Resolution would be turned over to Mr. Blanchard, the Commissioner who has been working on the redistricting for that area. Mr. Shultz stated that it is his understanding that school boards have the authority to make the decision to consolidate or unify and clarified that the goal set forth in the Resolution is to have two K-12 districts. Dr. Dowling asked if the proposal in the Resolution will bring about any significant savings in transportation. Mr. Sauceman said it would not as the area is still fairly rural, though it is growing, and geographically very large with 90% of their students having to be bussed.
John F. Schmadeke, Assistant Superintendent, Agua Fria High Union School District, explained an option for unification (Attachment 2) wherein Agua Fria Union High School District and Avondale and Litchfield Elementary School Districts would simply operate like they were unified, combining things like transportation, facilities and maintenance in those areas where there really is some cost savings in unification with basically governance by a consortium oversight group that would assure curriculum is coordinated in K through 12, so there are not the problems that are currently seen in elementary districts having different priorities.
Julianne Lein, Assistant Superintendent, Litchfield School District, stated there was no cost savings in unifying by either the 3 to 1 or 3 to 2 plan they looked at. She stated the three governing boards were also very concerned about the overall size and the magnitude of the district created considering that there is a lot of growth. She stated it was felt the district might become too big to deliver the same level of service to students as well as parents as it is now. Ms. Lein said the first priority is in unifying curriculum and if they were forced into a unification system, they would be spending all their time dealing with salary schedules and how well the phone systems and the databases talk to each other, and not on the real issue of student achievement.
Mr. Schoaf said the option is something to study and commented that either plan for unification put forward would expend a tremendous amount of political activity and effort on behalf of all members of the school boards and a good number of the teachers and administrators. All that time is going to take away from the priority which is educating the children. He mentioned it is also true that these districts are of a size currently that any combination of them to increase their numbers is not likely to result in any significant cost savings. The main benefit, therefore, for these three schools is the unification of curriculum and expectations. He said he believes that if a way can be found to obtain that without having to go through the political wrangling of a vote, then there is potential in the option explained by Mr. Schmadeke and Ms. Lein. He said there are, however, obvious problems with it, e.g., the concept is based on the idea that for the next four or five years, the school districts would be making reports back to this Commission, which he said he is hopeful will not need to exist that long. He reiterated, though, that the concept is worth exploring.
Chairman Shultz stated there is a target date of April 30 to send recommendations to all of the school boards for their consideration on unification. He said that since Mr. Schoal is dealing with about 14 districts, it would be good if he had more time to study them. Also, because of the Commission not having had a chance to consider the letter and proposal from Agua Fria Union (Attachment 2), he said it would be best to postpone discussing the matter further until the next meeting of the Commission.
Chairman Shultz stated the next item on the agenda is the continuation of the review of the School District Redistricting Commission’s (SDRC) updated FAQ (Attachment 3). Regarding Question 9 about the timeline which is April 30, it would mean today and at the next meeting the Commission needs to approve the plans that are ready so these can be turned over to the legal team at Arizona State University to prepare the appropriate packages to be sent out to the school boards and school districts. Regarding Question 12 and the last sentence of the response, two corrections were suggested and noted by Ms. Leyva who is keeping a list of all the changes to be made. Mr. Schoaf commented that it is vital that the tax computations are accurate.
Chairman Shultz said the issue of excess utilities that expires in 2009 is important to the Legislature and a priority with the Senate president. He said a lot of people will be working on it.
Ken Behringer, General Counsel, Legislative Council, stated that regarding Question 18, all existing contractual obligations are transferred and assumed by the new unified school district. There might have to be some negotiations by those districts in hashing them out, but this is the general rule. Regarding Question 21, Mr. Behringer believes the Commission does not have the authority to create a ward system.
Regarding Question 22 about voting to subdivide and then unify districts, Mr. Behringer explained in detail and answered how that would be done and what statute or session law applies in each situation. For the subdivision, the entire district votes whether to split into a certain amount of districts in a specific plan presented to the voters, asking them if they want to subdivide in that manner or not. This is the first question. If that succeeds, then a second question on unification may follow and the voters in this case would be those in the subdivisions deciding whether or not they want unification.
Gretchen Kitchel, Senior Public Affairs Representative, Arizona Public Service Company, addressed Question 32 regarding additional legislation that might impact school redistricting. She stated the possibility is being discussed of the following five issues being included in this year’s legislative package.
Chairman Shultz asked everyone to turn to Page 18 of the Commission’s proposals (Attachment 4) showing the redistricting plan for Maricopa County District Central and called upon Mr. Scribner to speak about it. Mr. Scribner said that with regard to the two options, he referred to Plan 2 first which would create a giant district of 105,956, which he is not in favor of nor does he know of anyone in favor of it. Regarding Plan 1, Mr. Scribner said this is the plan that creates 5 unified districts and that the common theme he has heard from colleagues, board members, community members, etc. is the smaller districts feel like they are losing their identity and being assumed by the larger districts; this is from the perspective of the elementary districts. The Phoenix Union High School constituents and colleagues are not necessarily in favor of this recommendation. However, given the two plans that were put forward, it seems to be the one most palatable. Chairman Shultz said if there are no objections, a letter now needs to be drafted for the superintendents and the school boards requesting them to consider the plan and return their comments by July 31.
Regarding the East Valley of Maricopa County Plan on Page 22 of Attachment 4, Mr. Blanchard stated Plan 1 would have a combined average daily members (ADM) of 43,258 and Plan 2 would divide Tempe Union High School into two districts. Mr. Blanchard said he prefers Plan 2. Mr. Thomas said he believes there was testimony Plan 2 would divide the community of Guadalupe. Mr. Blanchard answered the division is according to the elementary school districts. Chairman Shultz asked if Mr. Blanchard would be willing to put forth both plans to give the districts several options. Mr. Blanchard stated that he thought if multiple plans were offered to one district, they should be offered to all. Chairman Shultz received a consensus from the other Commissioners that only Plan 2 should be offered.
Regarding Maricopa County North Central on Page 26 of Attachment 4, Mr. Martinez stated his recommendation is Plan 1 creating two unified districts, each having roughly an ADM of 25,000 which is the one he would be willing to move on.
On Page 30 of Attachment 4, Mr. Shoaf said in the West Valley it may be appropriate to present several plans to the superintendents. Some of the questions about it are legislative, particularly the one about building a high school in an area where there is no high school. Mr. Shoaf said he would welcome more time to consider these plans.
Dr. Dowling stated it seems like an inequity is being created in that there are some districts with few students and others that are very large districts. Ms. Levya said that in Arizona it is not possible to have one district size that will fit all. Dr. Dowling said that is true but she did not think that megadistricts, which she defines as over 20,000, should be created. Chairman Shultz said demographers told him in Arizona there is no basis for figuring the optimum-size school district. Mr. Shultz said the Commission has to start where they are and create the best possible improvements.
Chairman Shultz said he would make available to the Commissioners an article about Maine’s Governor Balducci’s proposal to revamp the entire state creating certain types of uniformity along the lines that Dr. Dowling is talking about.
Mr. Shoaf stated that in looking at these numbers one has to consider they do not include high school students, so they are actually larger than stated and in each case district administrators, with the possible exception of District 5, have stated their districts will be in excess of 10,000 in less than ten years. Dr. Dowling said she is concerned that Washington District is at 23,000 already and with high schools might be 45,000. She said they have not done anything with the elementary districts that are already too large to manage. Mr. Shoaf said he may not disagree and does not like the idea of school districts getting too large and out of control, but the problem is that even if this Commission has the authority to split the common districts, he has a hard time imagining how complicated the ballot propositions would be.
Chairman Shultz asked Mr. Blanchard about the proposal that was presented earlier in the meeting by the Mohave School District and asked if he has any comments about it. Mr. Blanchard said that on Page 34 of Attachment 4, he would like to offer the option presented by the Mohave Valley Elementary School District (Attachment 1) as a Plan. Mr. Shultz suggested that it be written up first so the map and data can be seen clearly and call it Plan 2 with Plan 1 being rejected.
Regarding Pima County, Page 38 of Attachment 4, Mr. Naugle recommends combining only Altar Elementary and San Fernando Elementary into a new unified district. He is also proposing that Empire Elementary be combined with Sonoita Elgin school system. Chairman Shultz asked that Page 38 be rewritten with the new proposal.
Regarding Pinal County, Page 40, Plan 1, Mr. Naugle discussed the eight new unified districts and mentioned Page 42 contains a proposal of Michael Hunter with four districts. Chairman Shultz suggested that Mr. Naugle and Mr. Hunter meet and consolidate their two proposals.
Regarding Santa Cruz County, Mr. Naugle stated he would recommend Plan 2 on Page 46. Since that area is not expected to grow, he doubts the Plan would be approved by the people unless the Legislature makes some changes to the small school .
Regarding Yavapai County, Ms. Leyva said she would be prepared with a proposal at the next meeting after getting more input from the districts.
Regarding Yuma County, Mr. Blanchard said one plan with all the elementary school districts in one grand district was not considered because of the mountain ranges that separate the east and west valleys. He said that given Dr. Dowling’s and Mr. Shoaf’s comments and because of rapid growth particularly in western Yuma County and the development of the new port of entry, he would like thirty days to study it further.
Chairman Shultz said he would need to speak with Michael Hunter about Apache County.
Regarding Cochise County, Mr. Naugle explained recommendation of the Plan on Page 4 of Attachment 4.
Chairman Shultz commented that there are no plans for Gila, Graham or Greenlee Counties. Regarding La Paz County, Mr. Blanchard said he would report back in thirty days.
Dianne Smith, Executive Director, Greater Phoenix Educational Management Council, stated her organization, comprised of the school districts in Maricopa County, will conduct a meeting on February 9, 2007, to which the Commission is invited.
Chairman Shultz noted that Tempe Union High School and the Tempe Elementary School District is having a forum at 6:00 pm on January 25, 2007, on school district unification and said there should be some representation at these meetings and future ones.
Tom Freeland, representing himself, said he was a member of Cartwright School District Board and Phoenix Union High School Citzens Advisory Committee in the 1970s. He suggested to the Commission that in order for the voters to want to pass the redistricting proposals, the boundaries need to be changed to allow for different academic levels in the districts. He gave examples from the redistricting plans of districts with higher academic levels being proposed for unification with districts with lower academic levels. He said he thought the voters in the higher academic level areas would be opposed to that type of unification.
Evelyn Shapiro, representing herself, stated her community is concerned about the breaking up of the Phoenix Union High School district and what will be done with money that is now being given to Phoenix Union, e.g., if the teachers will be paid the same amount of money that they are paid now. She said the high school districts blame the elementary schools that the children are not properly prepared for high school; she said maybe the credentials of the high schools need to be checked. She asked if they are going into a different grouping, would their community now be told how to spend their money, how to treat their people and how to treat their children and lose 130 years of history. She said the Commission needs to be ready with good answers for the people and also to translate the information since some of the people do not speak English.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:19 p.m.
_____________________________
Pat Hudock, Committee Secretary
January 18, 2007
(Original minutes, attachments and tape on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
SCHOOL DISTRICT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
6
January 17, 2007
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------