ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

Forty-eighth Legislature – Second Regular Session

SCHOOL DISTRICT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

Minutes of Meeting

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

House Hearing Room 3 -- 2:00 p.m.

Chairman Shultz called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.

Members Present

Susan Bitter-Smith                                                                  Dave Naugle

Jay Blanchard                                                                         Thomas Schoaf

Art Harding                                                                            Martin Shultz, Chairman

Members Absent

Vicki Anderson (excused)                                                      Rita Leyva (excused)

Dr. Sandra Dowling                                                                Doris Goodale (excused)

Kent Scribner (excused)                                                         Joseph Thomas

Welcome and Introductions

Chairman Shultz stated that this is a public forum about the issues that were raised by the School District Redistricting Commission (SDRC), the recommendations and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The SDRC forwarded recommendations to the Governor, who signed them and forwarded them to the Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State sent the recommendations to the appropriate counties where they were put into a ballot format, so there will be an opportunity for unification of 76 school districts on the ballot for voters to make a determination. 

He related that the SDRC believes it has the statutory responsibility to hold public forums.  A forum was scheduled for June 10, 2008 at Phoenix College, but a challenge was brought against the SDRC.  After sending an email to his colleagues, he decided it was appropriate to wait until the challenge was handled by the Attorney General and Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State made a decision on September 11, 2008 that the SDRC is obligated to hold public hearings regarding unification of every affected school district in a neutral manner (Finding
SOS-CF-2008-017).  He reviewed the record created by the Preserve Madison respondent, Rhonda Olson, as to what constitutes a neutral manner, and believes the answer is:

• The prepared video that is meant to be objective and state the recommendations.
• A document that is part of the recommendations called SDRC FAQs About Arizona School Redistricting (Revised December 18, 2007) (Attachment 1).

Chairman Shultz indicated that some people want to speak in support of or in opposition to unification, but in order to be consistent with the directive from the Secretary of State’s Office, the discussion needs to pertain only to the recommendations or FAQs.

At Chairman Shultz’s request, the Commissioners present introduced themselves.

Chairman Shultz indicated that Mr. Thomas recommended that some meetings be held in the evening and indicated he will try to find a location.  He added that more meetings are planned and everyone is invited to help identify locations in which to conduct hearings.

Video Presentation

The informational video was shown.

Ms. Bitter-Smith pointed out that the SDRC agenda does not require any action to be taken, so a quorum is not necessary.

Chairman Shultz noted that the video includes all of the counties, but only the portion relating to Maricopa County was shown to save time.  He asked if anyone is interested in viewing plans in other counties, which no one requested.

Mr. Harding pointed out that the election date is incorrect in the video the first time it is mentioned.  It should be Tuesday, November 4, 2008.

Discussion of FAQs

Referring to the handout (Attachment 1), Chairman Shultz said this is complex in some areas and the SDRC was not allocated any funding for communication.  He gave an overview of the information contained on the Arizona Department of Education’s (ADE) website and legislative  items discussed by the SDRC (Pages 20 and 21).

Public Comments and Questions on SDRC Recommendations and SDRC FAQs

Chairman Shultz reiterated that this must be done in a neutral manner without offering support or opposition to any measure.

Sandra Nearing, representing self, thanked the Members for the time and effort put into this project with the main goal of improving education for Arizona students.  She said she worked at a local high school as a bookstore manager for four years, and every semester, within two weeks, ninth-grade students returned Algebra 1 and Literature books because they were not prepared to be in those classes.  She is glad the SDRC came up with consistency as part of the questions answered because for the first time in 17 years, the local high school and elementary schools developed a calendar that coincides.  She asked what other areas of consistency are hoped for when unification is discussed.

Mr. Schoaf responded that districts on the West side discussed topics like joint administrative facilities (one office that would serve the district), and joint transportation facilities and maintenance staffs.  Things could also be done in the food service area that could lead to efficiencies. Getting districts to buy consistent sets of textbooks for K-12 is something the unified district could look at.  These are also items that some of the districts on the West side indicated willingness to do  that can lead to more efficiencies. 

Ms. Bitter-Smith stated that part of her support for some of the plans has to do with curriculum articulation, including special programs like music, the arts, and physical science, so children are prepared when moving from elementary or junior high classrooms into high school classrooms.  This is not currently happening in every school district, and unfortunately, there is no formalized process without unification.  If unification does not pass, she hopes it will happen outside that venue. 

Michelle Hirsch, Chandler, representing self, thanked the Members for holding public forums, although she is not sure this is really a public forum if the public cannot give an opinion.  She said she appreciates the fact that some evening meetings may be held.  She related that she is a parent who has lived in the Kyrene School District for 17 years and made the following points:

• There is a lot of misinformation, disinformation and no information, which is the SDRCs responsibility whether or not funding is provided.  The video directs people to websites, but more information should be provided at the forums so the public does not have to do all the work to find information.
• Preserve Kyrene has a website, www.preservekyrene.org that the Members can view.  One of the documents on the website is a Goldwater Institute Policy Report dated
  January 12, 2004, Competition or Consolidation? The School District Debate Revisited.  The report states that in November 2002, the Arizona Office of the Auditor General released a report on school districts’ administrative spending that found, on average, small school districts spent more per pupil than large school districts.  In response, the Arizona State Legislature established a Commission to study the potential savings from statewide school district consolidation.  Kyrene is already spending more money in the classroom than larger consolidated or unified school districts and has 88 percent of Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Success (AIMS) excelling schools compared to
  24 percent of unified school districts, so why do the facts not bear out this supposedly good idea?
• The Commissioners made statements that unification “may lead to more dollars in the classroom” and “could put more dollars in the classroom.”  It is somewhat scary that she did not elect any of the Commissioners, but some powers worked very hard to put this initiative forward for parents in the community to vote on, and it is very complicated.
• Regarding Ms. Bitter-Smith’s comment that there is no formalized process for curriculum articulation, what about Arizona State standards?
• If larger school districts are such a great idea that would increase student achievement and dollars into the classroom, why not just have one huge Arizona district?

Chairman Shultz said he read the report, and there are areas he reserves the right to discuss and differ with her as far as the Goldwater Institute properly characterizing the role of public education and the facts.

Ms. Bitter-Smith acknowledged that it is difficult to have the website references, but she does not know what else can be done.  That is a challenge for the SDRC, which is not a campaign committee.  She agreed there are statewide curriculum standards, but that does not mean that the eighth-grade and ninth-grade math books are synchronized, which is her concern, and an issue that is dealt with in the Balsz Elementary School District every day that needs to be fixed.

Mr. Schoaf noted that specific facts about Kyrene were discussed by the SDRC and the vote to recommend a change was not unanimous because it is a very effective district.  The SDRC Members were appointed by legislators and the Governor, but fortunately, between the SDRC recommendations and the children, are the voters. If everyone would do the job she did in understanding her district, they would be able to make an informed judgment like her and do what is best for the children.

Kim Owens, Avondale, representing self, speculated that the Secretary of State’s opinion was directed at the behavior of the SDRC Members and is not meant to limit the speech of the public since the public is not an extension of government body.  She said the meeting was called rather hastily, so she has emails from people with questions.  She made the following points:

• As a board member for 17 years in the school district Mrs. Nearing worked in, there used to be a unified calendar until one feeder district decided to leave it up to the site council and they went off of a unified calendar; however, last year they went back to it because the community said it just did not work. 
• As far as ninth graders returning books, about 30 percent of the students coming to the district are from outside the district, so curriculum articulation would not help, and even if unification passed, that percentage would remain about the same. 
• In Tolleson, where some of the demographics do not favor student achievement, looking at this year’s tests, University High School is number one in math and reading, which says a lot about what can be done if people put their minds to it.
• The video discusses whether a child must move to a different school and indicates that open enrollment would still apply, which it would, but whether a child would be accepted at a school would depend on capacity, so the information is misleading.
• Some people would experience increased taxes with unification, such as in Buckeye where taxes would go from $1.37 to over $4.00, which is pretty significant.

Chairman Shultz remarked that studies from ADE show that some taxes would go up and some would go down, but in the end, everyone in the unified school district would have the same tax rate. 

Ms. Owens agreed that her taxes would go down a bit, whereas the property taxes for people in the Union School District would go down a lot because she will be paying for their insolvent district; therefore, she believes more discussion is needed in the video.

Chairman Shultz responded that the lawyers, tax attorneys, people from ADE, and all of the legislative experts attempted to answer the questions objectively, accurately and succinctly; otherwise, some answers could be pages and pages. 

• Regarding Career Ladders, the video says unified districts may apply to expedite, but everyone knows the state has no money, so requests may be rejected.  It should be made clear that the increase would come from the General Fund.

Ms. Owens conveyed the following questions from people who could not attend the meeting:

• In the Palominas School District in Cochise County, most of the voters do not want to be incorporated and no public meetings were held prior to the question being placed on the ballot. The only meeting was in Pima County and there is concern that the four statements on the ballot in support of unification were written by people who live outside the district and that the statements are completely unrelated to the situation the district is being asked to consider.

Mr. Naugle related that he attended a meeting of the Palominas School Board and discussed this with the board and community, so he is surprised about the comment.

Chairman Shultz explained that because of the size of the state, the Commissioners tried to cover all areas as much as possible.

• Why are utility industry lobbyists pushing this restructuring onto the communities and taking money out of classrooms to pay for these elections?  What does the utility industry specifically have to gain?  Also, there is concern that Jay Kaprosy, who resigned as a SDRC Member, is now financially benefitting from his actions as a Commissioner.

Chairman Shultz conveyed that he was appointed to the SDRC by the Governor.  He believes, and he is supported by his company, that improving public education in Arizona is one of the top leadership activities.  When he was appointed, his colleagues agreed that he would be the Chair.  Utility companies will collect the taxes and do not benefit other than it is his belief that the recommendations will put more dollars into classrooms, if the school boards choose.

When Ms. Owens asked if he would provide data on what would happen to the secondary assessed valuation for land owned by Arizona Public Service Company to show full disclosure, Chairman Shultz indicated that he will meet with her and walk through it, but he does not believe that needs to be done.

Ms. Bitter-Smith pointed out that Cable TV is not a public utility, but a licensed competitive industry that does not have the property tax components like a public utility.  She added that she is concerned about people’s employment being engendered.

Chairman Shultz noted that taxes collected from customers go to the state and school districts anyway, so the utility does not earn on the property taxes.

Paul Lowes, Tempe, representing self, stated that he finds the video presentation less than objective because he now has even more questions.  For example, he would like to see language indicating that teachers’ salaries will be level between high school and elementary and middle school teachers because there is no guarantee; it is only a possibility. 

Chairman Shultz said it is ultimately up to the new school board, so there is no guarantee.  The statute does not say the board has to do it, but it is interesting that all unified school boards have done so. 

Mr. Lowes submitted that making textbooks mesh and converting computers in a unified school district would be very costly.  He asked for cost studies for converting computer systems, teacher training programs and textbook conversions.

Edward Bufford, representing self, expressed concern about written statements by
Chairman Shultz regarding the benefits of unification in The Arizona Republic (From My View).

Chairman Shultz said that is his view.

Mr. Bufford asked if the Members would agree to make statements relating to unification in the context of how they feel rather than expressing opinions as facts. 

Chairman Shultz answered that it is ultimately the responsibility of the new school board to make decisions, so he does not believe he ever knowingly made any statements about potential outcomes of unification without saying that decisions are ultimately up to the new school board; however, he will make every effort to be as objective as possible. 

Cecilia Saenz, representing self, asked how many of the Members have children or grandchildren in public schools because she is curious about who is sitting on the Commission and where they stand as a connection to the general public.  She related that she is the first in her family to graduate from high school and go on to university, and she believes these meetings should be held in the evening when parents can attend and ask questions.  She questioned how the salaries of school staff, other than teachers, would be affected by unification and if they would still have a job.

Mr. Harding mentioned that some of the meetings were held at 2:00 p.m., but 25 public meetings were also held, and many of the people present at this meeting are new faces.  This process has been going on for two years, there have been multiple public meetings and there is a website.  Discussion followed about informing the public about the meetings.

Bruce Braley, Tempe, representing self, stated that he is a Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD) math teacher. A significant number of students are not from feeder districts, so articulation will not address their deficiencies, but for those students that are from districts that feed into theirs, at least half that enter his ninth grade Algebra class are not prepared to answer a simple multiplication question accurately within 10 seconds.  Research quoted by the Curriculum Specialist claims that students should be kept in their grade level while receiving supplemental support; however, out of 117 students this semester, only 10 of about 100 students who need this support are receiving it.  He believes the feeder districts are grappling with the same issue of needing to provide supplemental support and not having the funding to do so; therefore, the problem is not lack of articulation but lack of funding, which unification does not solve.  He indicated that he is on fall break, so this is the first time the SDRC met when he did not have a conflict.

Ms. Bitter-Smith said she did not intend to pick on math teachers or the math curriculum, but she believes there is an articulation problem, and her district is one of the feeder schools that are sending children that are probably not prepared.  She believes unification could be helpful in addressing the issue.  Discussion followed.

Lydia NaVarro, representing self and Raquel Terain, asked on Ms. Terain’s behalf, if class sizes could be increased by the new school board.

Chairman Shultz responded that class sizes can be decreased or increased any time a school board chooses. 

Ms. NaVarro asked how she can be assured that local and new school programs won’t be harmed.

Mr. Schoaf responded that would be up to the local school board, which funds and approves all school programs, whether the district is unified or not.  Chairman Shultz commented that he does not believe any existing or new unified school board would want to harm a program, but decisions have to be made about various programs with, according to testimony, limited dollars.  If unification occurs, there would be limited dollars, but the pot of money would be larger, so administration and the school board would have more flexibility to spread fixed administrative costs over a larger base, and if the school board is efficient and chooses to do so, additional money could be put into the classroom.

Chris Thomas, General Counsel, Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), advised that the ASBA commissioned a study by Stone & Youngberg, which indicated the numbers depicted in the video relating to property tax calculations are not accurate because of many assumptions that were made.  The Stone & Youngberg report is available on ASBA’s website.  He added that people will be basing their vote on misleading information from the video.

Mr. Harding said he had a discussion with the people at ADE who calculated the numbers, and an attempt was made to clarify that the numbers are simplistic without knowing updated budgets.  He suggested that someone from Stone & Youngberg talk to the people at ADE. 

Mr. Thomas acknowledged that Stone & Youngberg personnel said they could have come up with better numbers if there was more statutory clarity.  After 2005, there were three legislative sessions where clarifying statutory provisions could have been sought, but the small school weight and delaying when unification actually takes place to July 1, 2010 are the only changes that were made.  He opined that holding these hearings goes beyond the statutory authority of the SDRC.  He added that there is a conflict of interest in that Jay Kaprosy is receiving a $25,000 check from his lobbying firm to lobby the unification proposal after he voted for the recommendations a few months ago as a Member of the Commission. 

Mr. Blanchard stated that the ASBA was aware of this legislation for a long time and knew the Commission had no money and very little resources; in fact, most of the Members drove to sites around the country on their own time with no pay.  He asked if the ASBA considered lobbying the Legislature to fund the SDRC.

Mr. Thomas replied that the ASBA would have been happy to do that, but was not asked.  He is aware that Chairman Shultz was appointed by the Governor, but he also wrote a paper for the Greater Phoenix Leadership on the subject, which has been a passion of his for a long time.  The bill was Chairman Shultz’s idea; it was sponsored by Senator Gray, but he shepherded it through the process.  The funding was stripped out, and he has no doubt of Chairman Shultz’s ability to obtain funding, but he chose not to do that. 

Jay Kaprosy, representing self, observed that he now knows where the accusations regarding his supposed conflict of interest arise from.  He explained that he was appointed to the SDRC by the President of the Senate to complete Michael Hunter’s term, which he did with no anticipation of running a campaign, no anticipation of being compensated in any way, shape or form and no possibility of a conflict of interest.  As a Member of the Commission, he did what he thought was in the best interest of children, and it is preposterous for people to make accusations about a conflict of interest now that he is in a position to run a campaign to fight on behalf of something he is passionate about.  He never worked for a utility or accepted a dime from a utility.  He stepped up to run this campaign following the first forum where he became very concerned about the statements that were made and the information that was floating around. 

Chairman Shultz said he appreciates the tenor of the meeting because the objective of being neutral and civil was met.  Those who agreed to find possible locations for additional forums will be contacted.  He believes it is the responsibility of the SDRC to try to effectively communicate the recommendations, review the facts and let the voters make a decision on this important issue.

Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                        Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary

                                                                        October 10, 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

2

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

October 7, 2008

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------