---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty-eighth Legislature – Second Regular Session
SCHOOL DISTRICT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 3 -- 2:00 p.m.
Chairman Shultz called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Martin Shultz, Chairman Rita Leyva
Vicki Anderson Jay Kaprosy
Susan Bitter-Smith Dave Naugle
Jay Blanchard Kent Scribner
Art Harding
Members Absent
Dr. Sandra Dowling Thomas Schoaf
Doris Goodale Joseph Thomas
Welcome and Introductions
Chairman Shultz congratulated the Members for completing the recommendations in a timely manner. He reviewed the agenda and welcomed public input. The Members introduced themselves.
Review of Process to Place School Unification Plans On The November Ballot
Chairman Shultz stated that SB 1068 was reasonably clear, but there are some gaps. The process is unique in that a referendum by the Legislature and an initiative from people obtaining signatures were placed on the ballot. Nothing like this hybrid was ever created before. He said the Commission’s report was signed by the Governor and sent to the Secretary of State. He and Ken Behringer attended a meeting with the Deputy Secretary of State and the Elections Director to discuss approaches to move to the next step with some kind of paper trail.
Ken Behringer, Counsel, Arizona Legislative Council, advised that once the report is filed with the Governor and Secretary of State, the school superintendents in the affected counties are responsible for calling an election for the various plans. There is no notice mechanism in session law, but the filing with the Secretary of State may serve as legal notice. The fact that there is no direct notice requirement in the statute was discussed with the Secretary of State’s Office. He added that the statute contains requirements for the county school superintendents to prepare a publicity pamphlet and specifies how the question, at least for unification of school districts, has to be on the ballot. He said that in a memo to Chairman Shultz in October 2007, he suggested language for division of school districts for which session law does not provide specific language. Some items are clearly set out and some are not.
Chairman Shultz surmised that the Commission is responsible for meeting with county election officials and county school superintendents to describe the plans so they can properly put the language on the proper ballot. Mr. Behringer replied that is not required by statute, but it is within the legal authority of the Commission.
Ms. Leyva suggested contacting Nicole Stickler at the county school superintendent’s organization to ask how they would prefer to receive the information.
Mr. Naugle said from conversations with county superintendents in Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties, there have been discussions about details leading up to an election, and there is concern because the county school superintendent was asked to visit with the county attorney. He opined that a meeting between the Commission, the county school superintendents and election people would be a good start. He added that one of the challenges in the area is the proposed unification of Sonoita and Empire School Districts, which are in two separate counties.
Mr. Behringer advised that the law does not preclude that, but much detail is involved in how it would be placed on the ballot. Ms. Leyva remarked that the largest school district would be the home county.
Mr. Naugle said the situation is complicated by a House bill to eliminate transportation districts. One of those school districts is a transportation district, so quite a stir has been created among school board officials, who are now in favor of the unification plan.
Chairman Shultz stated that after the Commission receives a letter from the Secretary of State, Nicole Stickler will be contacted to establish the “Blanchard conference,” which would be a working meeting with county school superintendents and county election officials. Perhaps the county organization building across the street can be used, but anyone unable to attend could teleconference.
Ms. Bitter-Smith asked if the Maricopa
County Superintendent and election officials would be included in the meeting,
noting that a number of school districts are panicking about this process
particularly because there is the possibility that many will have bond issues. She
wondered if a second meeting should be held for Maricopa County with people from
those school districts.
Mr. Shultz stated that once the larger working meeting is held, the
Commissioners could follow-up with any county officials who need it.
Wendy Qualls, Business Manager, Litchfield Elementary School District, assumed that in talking about the ballot, the Commission will look at existing statute relating to unification of an elementary and a union high school district for their district. She said one of the requirements is to have a consolidated plan in the publicity pamphlet, so it may be necessary to obtain information from those school districts, which will have to address boundaries for the new schools, decide where students will attend, look at transportation plans, special education, etc.
Mr. Shultz replied that the Commission is working under the guidance of SB 1068 (Laws of 2005). The intention is to consult with superintendents, business officials, and school board members of the various districts that are impacted, so that when this gets on the ballot, at least it is a fair question and the information provided in the publicity pamphlet is consistent with the laws and statute.
Mr. Naugle asked that consideration be given to regional meetings because it is a long way to drive from Southern Arizona to Phoenix. Chairman Shultz responded that if the Commissioners move quickly on the working meeting, that is a beginning, and then it will be known what follow-up is necessary in March and April 2008.
Mr. Naugle stated that the proposal for Maricopa County is far different than most of the outlying counties, so the Commission needs to be sensitive to that and plan accordingly.
SDRC Recommendation – Communications and Information Effort
Chairman Shultz stated that there are nine counties and a communications campaign with reasonable objectivity is needed.
Rhonda Bannard, Inspired Connections, provided the following options:
Chairman Shultz commented that revising the FAQs to describe what it means from a parent, teacher and taxpayer standpoint sounds very helpful. Ms. Bitter-Smith stated that the video option could be easily transported and used for school boards. She questioned the cost.
Ms. Bannard indicated that Decision
Theater has a small amount of money left over from
Phase 2 work that was done for the Commission, and based on the Commission’s
feedback, the cost could be calculated. The Decision Theater can also produce
CDs and send them out if the web-based concept does not work. She said she asked
Chairman Shultz if Arizona Public Service Company can do the video recording of
the intros and voiceovers, which can be given to Decision Theater to marry with
their technology and maps, and would be fairly simple.
Chairman Shultz stated that some potential resources to create the video are APS, Salt River Project, and AzTV capabilities at the Legislature. Ms. Bitter-Smith related that the Cable TV industry would be willing to help. Chairman Shultz speculated that some school districts may be willing to utilize their video technology.
The Members agreed that a video would be the best option. Chairman Shultz said it could be put together under Ms. Bannard’s direction with the objective to be objective. A series of public forums would be held around the state to not only show the video, but also have pro-con discussions.
Mr. Blanchard stated that there should be the capability to edit the video with the latest information.
Chairman Shultz recommended that the video be viewed by people like Janice Palmer of the Arizona School Boards Association, and possibly school administrators, to ensure objectivity.
Chairman Shultz advised that he
received an email confirming a leadership forum on
April 21, 2008 at the ASU West Kiva Auditorium in the evening, and asked anyone
interested in attending to send him an email.
Dr. Karen E. Williams, Assistant to Superintendent, Alhambra School District, asked if the video presentation will answer questions, such as whether teachers’ salaries will be frozen, and if there will be an opportunity for the public to view the video and have questions answered by Commission Members.
Chairman Shultz responded that the script has not been written, but her comments will be considered. Questions are referred to the proper party at the Commission, legal staff or the SFB, etc., and the Commission has been trying to answer any major questions and include those in the SDRC facts. He suggested that she obtain Ms. Bannard’s card if she wants to submit ideas.
Mr. Kaprosy stated that many of the questions can only be answered by elected school boards, so many statements are being made that cannot be answered until school boards make decisions.
Ed Bufford, President, Classroom Teachers Association, Phoenix Union High School District, thanked Mr. Shultz for attending a Council of Reps meeting.
Mr. Shultz said he and Joe Thomas attended the meeting and there were over 100 reps, who are classroom teachers. A wonderful discussion was held and he appreciated the tone and spirit.
Mr. Bufford asked if the possibility of frozen salaries is a myth. All that is known so far is that salaries would not decrease for one year, but after the first year, salaries could not only be frozen, but go down, in order to match salaries. Much is mentioned about how much money would be saved with fewer superintendents, but he met with people in the district and found that it would take $54 million to make salaries equal. He questioned where that would come from.
Chairman Shultz assumed that an analysis was done of the salary increases and $54 million would be required to make the salaries of the 13 elementary districts comparable to the Phoenix Union High School District. He asked Mr. Bufford to calculate the estimated combined budget of the 14 school districts and determine what percentage the $54 million equates to of that total. Regarding where to obtain the money, perhaps estimates can be obtained from the Arizona Department of Education on tax rates, etc., but details would be up to the new school board and administration.
Ms. Bitter-Smith noted that several of those elementary school districts have challenges with bond overrides not being passed and changes in operation dollars, and the number of teachers and salaries, so numbers that were calculated 90 days ago may need updating.
Evelyn L. Shapiro, Isaac School District Governing Board, stated that the school district will be losing the superintendent on July 1, 2008 and is looking for a new superintendent. She asked what the new superintendent should be told, when a three-year contract is usually signed, since there is no guarantee the new superintendent will be over the whole collaboration in the end.
Chairman Shultz suggested showing candidates a copy of SB 1068 and telling them the Commission completed its work and the issue will be on the ballot, then the contract can be set up as the school board wishes.
Update on SDRC Legislative Efforts
Chairman Shultz related that SB 1443 (Attachment 1) has an amendment to extend the transition time for an 18-month period (Attachment 2) because, as heard in testimony from almost everyone, this is complex and sorting it out could take longer than from November to the next July.
Ms. Bitter-Smith asked if it is
appropriate for the Commission to send a communication to Members of the
Legislature about the bill or whether it should be done individually.
Chairman Shultz responded that both could be done.
Ms. Bitter-Smith
moved, seconded by Mr. Harding, that the SDRC write a communication to all
Members of the Arizona Legislature in support of
SB 1443 as amended. The motion carried.
Chairman Shultz said another provision in the amendment caps the small school adjustment. In the first year, the new district would receive 100 percent of what the previous districts that qualified for the small school adjustment received; in the second year 75 percent of that amount; in the third year 50 percent; and in the fourth year 25 percent, and then it expires. Several ideas were suggested, but Senator Gray settled on this as fair; however, she is still open to amending.
Ms. Leyva indicated that a larger concern would be to add an element saying that newly unified districts could qualify for a building. Chairman Shultz said it could be further discussed; however, in the two budgets passed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, a moratorium was placed on buildings.
Ms. Leyva stated that in western Yavapai County, the unification effort turned into a consolidation effort because if unification occurred, they would never qualify for a building under present statute. Chairman Shultz suggested relaying that to legislators from Yavapai County.
Mr. Naugle remarked that is an issue for Pinal County, which is anticipating huge growth in the next 10 to 15 years. Referring to the legislation mentioned earlier about transportation districts, he suggested that perhaps it could be amended so it would not apply to districts that are part of a unification plan, or if so, a decision would not be made until 2009 or so.
Robin Barry, Superintendent, Palo Verde Elementary School District, suggested that the video be reviewed by county representatives to ensure objectivity.
When someone from the audience advised that Representative Tom Chabin sponsored the bill relating to transportation districts, Chairman Shultz indicated that he will talk to him about a possible amendment.
Mr. Blanchard stated that if voters agree to this, the primary property tax rate could possibly increase. He added that changing the operational date to 12 months after the unification plan is approved means that funding would be going out to 2013-2014.
Mr. Behringer clarified that the first year of operation would be 2011-2012.
Chairman Shultz stated that the actual cost of the small school adjustment would be borne by local taxpayers and there would be no impact to the state.
Chairman Shultz asked for volunteers
for the SDRC Ballot Subcommittee to work with him and Mr. Harding on the “Blanchard
conference” that will probably begin with contacting
Nicole Stickler. Dr. Scribner, Mr. Naugle and Ms. Bitter-Smith volunteered.
Chairman Shultz stated that he would appreciate as much support as possible at the leadership forum on April 21, 2008 and indicated to Ms. Bitter-Smith that the Commission will probably call on the Cable TV industry for help with the video.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
March 4, 2008
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office: video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
SCHOOL DISTRICT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
2
February 21, 2008
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------