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 2:03 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Vicki Anderson Dave Naugle
Susan Bitter-Smith Thomas Schoaf
Jay Blanchard Kent Scribner
Dr. Sandra Dowling Joseph Thomas
Art Harding Martin Shultz, Chairman
Rita Leyva
Members Absent
Doris Goodale
Welcome and Introductions
Chairman Shultz reviewed the agenda and introduced the Members. He indicated that this will be the last meeting, but Senator Chuck Gray intends to sponsor legislation to continue a similar Committee. Opening remarks were made by the Members.
Chairman Shultz reviewed information provided to the Members that will be available on the Arizona Department of Education/School District Redistricting Commission (SDRC) website:
Mr. Thomas asked if e-mails were received indicating that people are pleased that the SDRC will meet again and possibly send plans back out to voters. Mr. Harding said he believes a few positive emails were received, which Mr. Thomas requested also be included on the website.
Discussion and Review of Election Results
Referring to the Quick Summary of Election Results (Attachment 1), Mr. Harding related that of the 27 proposed unification plans, 18 failed without question. Nine plans passed, of which three are without question: Cochise County, District B; Pima County, District A; and Pinal County, District A. In Maricopa County West Valley, District B passed without question in terms of votes, but there will be some litigation (Attachment 4). The following plans passed, but there are still questions: Maricopa County, District B; Pinal County, Districts B, C, D, E and G.
Referring to Pinal County, Mr. Thomas recalled from discussions of the SDRC that if any districts voted no
within a proposal, that district had veto power, which impacted the way the
Commissioners voted to release the plans to the voters, but that now seems to
be changing.
Mr. Harding responded that is the reason for requesting an opinion from the
Attorney General (Attachment 3). Mr. Thomas speculated that if the
Commissioners did not think there was veto power, they may have voted differently.
Ken Behringer, Legal Counsel, Arizona Legislative Counsel, stated that the legislation stipulates that if any of the school districts vote against a plan, the entire plan goes down, and there was concern by the Commissioners that none of the plans would pass, so the idea was to provide two questions on the ballot. The first question is to break up the area, which involves the union high school district, and the second question is on unification. When the two questions are put together, 51 percent of the people in the entire union high school district must approve the subdivision.
He stated that in Yuma, some individual school districts approved unification, but did not receive 51 percent of the entire district to break up the area. In some areas of Pinal County, the question on subdivision was approved by 51 percent of the voters in the union high school district, but some of the common school districts approved unification and some did not. An opinion was requested from the Attorney General, which will be the official opinion.
Chairman Shultz remarked that the SDRC put the plans forward and had a common understanding, but the election questions were actually drawn up by the county election officials and county superintendents. He hopes an answer will be provided by the Attorney General in a timely manner.
Mr. Behringer repeated that the ultimate determination will be the Attorney General’s interpretation, but his memo is consistent with what he perceived as the Commission’s belief (Attachment 2).
Chairman Shultz stated that in Maricopa County Central, six of the elementary districts voted more yes than no, so while the SDRC is not to the point of considering additional unifications, he asked for thoughts on that.
Mr. Scribner acknowledged that the Commissioners were operating under the same understanding that if one district voted the unification plan down it would fail, and in that case, 54 percent voted no and 45 percent voted yes. He related that at Phoenix Union High School, the public conversation on unification reenergized collaborative efforts among union high school districts and their partners.
Ms. Bitter-Smith said she is glad there was discussion about articulation of curriculum at the last meeting, which she believes unification would have helped, but she is very pleased the districts are working as partners.
Chairman Shultz related that the Chairman of the Board of Phoenix Union, David Lujan, indicated to him that in his leadership role at the Legislature he plans to work with elementary districts on articulation of curriculum and champion efforts with partner districts to see what compensation can occur for elementary teachers where there is a substantial salary differentiation.
Mr. Schoaf reported that various West side superintendents talked about working together more closely, making sure curriculum articulation is addressed, and looking for areas within administrative functions where expenses can be shared or broken up. He hopes the districts will continue to move in that direction in order to use as many dollars as possible in the classroom.
Mr. Thomas remarked that streamlining curriculum is a noble goal and one all districts and non-unified districts should try, but he has students from three different junior highs in the same district, which means a classroom of different learning abilities and experiences, so there will never be perfect alignment. Only so much can be done even in a unified district. Also, State standards are blueprints for everyone to adhere to that provide a tremendous amount of curricular alignment.
Public Testimony
Richard Fields, representing self, submitted that there are many misstatements about teacher salaries, administrative costs and articulation. He indicated that he does not want the SDRC to resubmit the Washington-Glendale Elementary plan.
Estevan Carreon, President, Glendale Union Education Association; special education teacher; community member; parent, Glendale, testified that he is opposed to resubmission of the Washington-Glendale Elementary proposal because the voters have spoken. He added that the election cost Glendale Elementary, Glendale Union and Washington Elementary about $70,000, which could have been used in the classroom or for much-needed communication devices. For the SDRC to resubmit a proposal without acknowledging the fiscal responsibilities that would be incurred by those districts is inappropriate, especially since the voters have spoken.
Mr. Harding stated that many e-mails were received from people in the Washington-Glendale Elementary area in the last few weeks (Attachment 8), and he agrees with the speakers.
Mr. Harding moved, seconded by Mr. Naugle, that the SDRC not put forward a revised plan for Glendale Elementary, Washington Elementary or Glendale Union High School.
(A letter from Vicki Johnson,
President, Glendale Union High School District, and
Steve Johnston, President, Glendale Elementary School District, requesting that
the SDRC respect the communities’ recent vote was submitted for the record [Attachment
9]).
Question was called and the motion carried.
Dr. Raymond Aguilera,
Superintendent, Gadsden Elementary School District; San Luis, thanked the Commissioners
for their hard work and Dr. Blanchard who met with him and his staff since 2005
so they always knew what was going on. He said if the community of San Luis had
voted yes on both questions, it would have resulted in a K-12 unified school
district of somewhat over 70,000 students, which would be tangible. The real
issue is that the community should have local control over the school district;
however, because of the numbers spread throughout
Yuma County, San Luis will never have a majority vote on any issue. At this
point, the only hope is to work with every governing board, and hopefully, the
school districts will continue the dialogue. He thanked the Commission for
opening up communication in the area.
When Chairman Shultz asked for recommendations because of the district area, Dr. Aguilera suggested allowing the vote of the boundaries of the school district to have final say in what will happen to the children from that community. He agreed that the board and his colleagues will continue to pursue the issue.
Toni Badone, representing self, read a statement from the Yuma Union High School District Governing Board (Attachment 10). She said she appreciates Dr. Blanchard’s work in the Gadsden School District, but he did not visit any of the other school districts, so he did not represent her district. She submitted that in Yuma County, there are many partnerships for efficiencies and the highest percentage of dollars goes into the classroom according to an Auditor General’s report. She hopes the Members will take the comments and recommendations and leave them alone.
Dr. Blanchard noted that the previous superintendent was an advocate of unification and held an open meeting in the Gadsden School District library that was attended by all of the county superintendents, except her. Ms. Badone replied that she was at the meeting, but Dr. Blanchard did not meet with the school districts individually as with Gadsden. At that time, there were two plans and there was no clue which would be recommended to the SDRC. She attended SDRC meetings last year and was surprised to see that Plan B was recommended. The superintendents in the county are not opposed to K-12 organization and sent a letter asking the SDRC to put a different question on their ballot, i.e., to ask if the voters support unification, but it was never considered.
Chairman Shultz related that the
latest data shows the Yuma Union High School District puts
56 percent of monies spent into the classroom and Yuma Elementary District puts
51 percent in the classroom.
Ms. Badone related that she sent a five-page letter to Governor Napolitano and conversed with the Governor on October 30, 2008. When federal grants are written, the money does not go into classrooms, but is considered instructional support. Yuma Elementary had a huge federal grant for safety and a $2.4 million Advanced Placement grant was recently obtained. Sixty-five percent will not be reached because those dollars are from the federal government.
Chairman Shultz stated that the SDRC did not have the authority to put that question on the ballot, but if it did, he asked her recommendation for unifying school districts in Yuma County. Ms. Badone recommended not mandating that it be done within a time frame because enough time is needed to continue focusing on instruction and to take it a piece at a time. Also, efficiencies of size and demographics should be considered because the students move around.
Chairman Shultz asked if she believes it is worthwhile to pursue unification. Ms. Badone responded that she is from a K-12 system and knows it only works if the people make it work. She would entertain unification if the other superintendents, voters and board want it, but it is not at the top of her list.
Representative Lynn Pancrazi, representing self, said Senator Chuck Gray is considering offering legislation to establish a new Committee to begin this process all over again. The State currently has a huge deficit, and a unification election would cost the State or school districts a lot of money. Until the deficit is taken care of, she does not want to see legislation that will cost money. Also, State statute already allows school districts to unify on a community level, which is where it needs to be done.
Dr. Blanchard acknowledged that school
boards can do this on their own, which happened in Kingman a few years ago.
When he asked if she would talk to the Yuma school boards,
Mrs. Pancrazi replied that she would not hesitate to put unification on the
ballot, but the school districts currently work together due to budget
constraints and because the children are transient, so many of the things that
would be done by unification already occur.
Mr. Thomas stated that Ms. Goodale was involved in the Kingman unification when the State provided incentives. He questioned if an election in Yuma or any district would be impacted if the incentive was offered again, even with the budget deficit. Mrs. Pancrazi answered that in some areas it would, but she represents Wellton, Hyder, Mohawk, etc., which are small school districts, and if unification occurred, they would lose their small school funding. Legislation was passed to phase it out, but the school districts will not grow in five years to be able to support themselves.
Chairman Shultz remarked that in Yuma Elementary, 48.1 percent of the money spent goes into non-classroom activities. Mrs. Pancrazi responded that if unfunded mandates were eliminated, a lot of it would be gone. Chairman Shultz stated that in the Gadsden Elementary District non-classroom expenditures are 49.5 percent.
Ms. Leyva commented that the data in the classroom dollar report Chairman Shultz referred to is flawed, so it is frustrating when it is cited. Mrs. Pancrazi stated that many employees are not in the classroom because they are used as mentors, quasi-administrators and to facilitate and keep records for all of the unfunded mandates from the federal and State levels.
Clorinda Contreras Erives, ELD Teacher, Tolleson Elementary School District; President, Tolleson Education Association, said she heard the Commission may be doing unification on a State level. Teachers, support staff and bus drivers are stressed about what is going to happen and there are no answers to their questions. If unification is being considered on a State level, a plan should be developed for the districts instead of lumping the districts together. She said there is no funding and there was no input from the community, staff or anyone. It is very difficult to work that way. If their board had gotten together and decided unification is desired, they could have had a plan in place before being pushed into this. She does not like teachers to be frazzled about what is happening rather than focusing on education.
Susan Pendleton, Littleton School District, representing self, testified that she is hearing from fellow teachers, staff members and even a board member that they are scared and nervous because of not knowing what is going on. They are not against unification, but a plan was never put into effect prior to voting, so people had no knowledge of what they were voting on. Everyone has been hearing about pay cuts with the current deficit, there is no funding to put unification into place and she is concerned about curriculum when the school district recently spent money on books. She added that it seems like it will cost more money until some plan is put into effect, and funding would help.
Chairman Shultz reiterated the fact that a 21 percent incentive was available for school districts to unify, but no school districts except Kingman did so. Ms. Pendleton answered that she heard there used to be an incentive, but nothing is in place today. With the present economy, she does not know how that would be possible again, which is a concern.
Sandra Nearing, Avondale, representing self, stated that she is from the district that accepts the majority yes vote for overrides, but does not accept a yes vote on unification. She listened to testimony that voters did not understand what unification or redistricting is about; however, the local paper, West Valley View, provided three unbiased reports on redistricting. She said this is the third redistricting forum she attended, and at the other two, she could not believe the disrespect from people in education, parents, teachers and superintendents. She thanked the Commissioners for giving their time to do what is best for Arizona youth. She encouraged the SDRC not to give up and to try to do something in legislation because unification is needed.
Bill Allsbrooks, Bullhead City, representing self, thanked Dr. Blanchard and Ms. Goodale for their work. Referring to a handout showing Mohave County Unification Results, he noted the mixed result and reviewed points for consideration (Attachment 11). He added that the district would be interested in seeing another plan, but he is not sure it would have to be one big unified district because the results of the election may not bear that out.
Dr. Blanchard stated that the Superintendent of Topock spoke before the Commission on a few occasions and said if Topock was left out of the situation, the voters would support unification; however, he was wrong. Mr. Allsbrooks responded that the superintendent is no longer there.
Robin Berry, Superintendent,
Palo Verde Elementary School District, Buckeye, said the Maricopa County West Valley unification plan did not pass. She thanked the Members for their
hard work and Mr. Schoaf for developing a recommendation. She suggested that
since
Mr. Harding made a motion for one plan not to be returned to the voters, it
would be appropriate to make the same motion for other plans that failed.
Mr. Harding said he made the motion for the Northwest Valley because e-mails were received. He will check on the votes and see if e-mails were received from that area. Chairman Shultz added that the Commission was responding to the e-mails and sense of the vote.
Dr. Andy Rogers, Superintendent, Liberty Elementary School District, Goodyear, said in 2007, he moved to Arizona from another state and had extensive experience in unified school districts. He was asked by the governing board to find out what the public thinks about unification. Community forums were held at each of the five schools. The community was strongly opposed to Plan 2, which was on the ballot, but in favor of Plan 1 whereby Liberty would become a K-12 unified district. Being new, he did not realize the implications of the board’s 5-0 vote to give input to the SDRC in favor of unification. When it was discovered that the plan that was moving forward was Buckeye Union High becoming a large district, projections at build-out were that they would have 400,000 students in the Buckeye Valley. The board submitted a statement by unanimous vote opposing the unification plan because it does not make sense at this point in time. The board believes in unification, but is opposed to this plan.
Michelle Hirsch, Chandler,
representing self, thanked the Members for their work, especially
Mr. Naugle, Mr. Harding and Chairman Shultz for attending a formal hearing in
their area. She requested that the SDRC not only respect the 70 percent vote
against unification, but make a motion to take the plan for Kyrene off the
table. She submitted that Kyrene is very effective in putting dollars into the
classroom and low administrative costs. A good job is already being done in
Kyrene, and to spend another estimated $80,000 that was spent on the prior
election, not to mention the time, is unnecessary.
Chairman Shultz pointed out that the voters in the Tempe Elementary District voted in favor of unification. Ms. Hirsch said that is because no forums were held there to discuss the issue with the community or the vote would have been different.
Mr. Harding noted that in the Glendale-Washington area, both districts that were affected voted no. He said he cannot make a motion for an area where one of the two districts voted yes.
Ellen Shamah, Tempe, representing self, in response to the comment about Tempe Elementary passing unification, noted that it passed by the same percentage as all of the bond issues, so people were just voting yes on all three issues. She stated that Kyrene is a cost-efficient school district, and it is also a community that would disappear if Kyrene is disbanded, which is what a unification vote would do. Seventy percent of the residents voted against unification, and if it were on the ballot again, she believes the Tempe Elementary District would also vote against unification.
Mr. Naugle asked how the community would respond to creation of two K-12 districts following the boundaries of Kyrene and the Tempe Elementary Districts. Ms. Shamah answered that there is a big problem with desegregation and whether or not that would pass federal law. The idea was considered.
Ed Bufford, representing self, made the following points:
Dr. Dowling asked if the election results would have been different if the SDRC plan had made the elementary districts K-12. Mr. Bufford stated that two SDRC Members were invited twice to school teacher association meetings, once when they thought it would be put on the ballot as five districts, and afterwards when they were blindsided with a megadistrict of 120,000 plus students, and there is a huge difference between the two concepts. He does not know what would have happened, but he would rather have seen five K-12 districts of 20,000 to 30,000 students. The school board is unanimously against a megadistrict, so things should stay as they are until there is a lot more organization as far as what is proposed.
Dr. Blanchard stated that at the start of this process, he, Chairman Shultz and counsel met with all of the elementary superintendents in the Phoenix Union High School District without the union superintendent at a breakfast in the Balsz School District. Almost everyone agreed that changes needed to happen, and they were going to work together and present some plans to the SDRC, which never happened. He was personally responsible for drafting the five-district scenario only because no plans were provided. The Phoenix Union High School District was geographically divided to begin discussion about possible plans, then the plans that were supposed to start discussion suddenly became “the plan,” which was never the intention. He attended one SDRC meeting in the district and tried to make the point that, hopefully, more plans would be received, but that did not happen.
Ms. Bitter-Smith stated that in Maricopa County Central, there should be some input for groups to have conversations, so perhaps Dr. Scribner could be useful in putting the players together because she suspects there is not a full understanding of what is happening with Phoenix Union.
Sarah Speer, Chair, Preserve Madison; parent, stated opposition to the Maricopa County Central plan, noting that 73 percent of the voters agreed with her who were not confused about what they were voting on. She asked the SDRC Members to respect the vote of the people because there is no interest in another proposal that will cost the district upwards of $25,000 that could have been spent in the classroom. She offered to provide e-mails saying the district is not interested in unification if that is what the motion for the Glendale-Washington area was based upon.
Chairman Shultz stated that e-mails were not the impetus for the SDRC’s actions. Mr. Harding remarked that he is not willing to table discussion in districts where some voters voted yes.
Ms. Speer asked that the funding incentive be considered for those areas that voted for unification, but said as far as Madison is concerned, the vote is overwhelming.
Janice Palmer, Arizona School Boards Association, referring to an e-mail (Attachment 5), submitted that a blanket proposal stating that everyone will be unified and operational by 2012 is beyond the purview of the SDRC. Also, if the SDRC is not going back to the ballot for Glendale-Washington Elementary, why go back out on a Statewide issue. Additionally, there is a legal issue in going back out on those plans when the State is experiencing such tough budget times. It cost Maricopa County Elections $492,000 for publicity pamphlets and printing the ballot, which does not include staff time of people to show up at hearings and provide information.
Chris Thomas, Legal Counsel, Arizona School Boards Association, conveyed that SB 1068 states that the question goes before the voters, and if a majority of qualified electors in an affected district support unification, unification will go forward. Four plans passed that may be at issue. The judge in Pima County ruled last week that the Alta Valley proposal of unification to go from K-8 to a unified school district did not pass by the qualified elector standard, which was required by law. There are pending actions in Cochise County regarding the Palomino School District, a similar 0-3 to a unified school district, and in Maricopa as well that was referred to earlier. He questioned if the Commissioners want to go forward with any kind of proposal or suggestion with that legal standard in mind.
Discussion Regarding Potential Proposed Legislation
School Administrative Reorganization Act of 2010
Referring to the e-mail (Attachment 7), Dr. Blanchard explained that voters who live in independent school districts have a vested interest in schools, but did not get a chance to vote at the polls, so he would like to discuss how to allow all voters in the State to look at unification. He does not intend for a vote to be taken, but wanted to bring this to the Members’ attention.
Chairman Shultz thanked Jackie Jones and the Arizona Department of Education for working with Dr. Blanchard and providing a copy of Chapter 668 of the laws of Maine with regards to this Act (Attachment 12). He related that he talked to Governor Baldacci from Maine who says going through the process of unification of school districts in Maine is as excruciating as the work of the SDRC.
Mr. Schoaf opined that the concept of a Statewide vote on unification is a waste of time. He began talking to legislators about the data that was referred to many times in the last few years, and particularly the data that is used today that cites the amount of money that goes into school district classrooms. Kyrene is the poster child for getting the most amount of money into the classroom and producing a great result with students in terms of the ability to do well on tests. He recommended finding out the difference between Kyrene or any other school district that gets 60-65 percent of money spent into the classroom from other school districts that cannot seem to do that. He stated that perhaps the data is skewed due to federal grants, etc. He encouraged the Commissioners to work on items with the Legislature that can help improve things going on within their districts.
Ms. Bitter-Smith stated that voters were clearly against unification in Madison, Balsz and other places, but perhaps in pockets where voters were interested in unification, the SDRC could play a role in putting those people together with their elected board members and elected officials to have conversations. She offered her and Dr. Scribner’s help.
Arizona Department of Education
Mr. Harding explained that Senator
Chuck Gray opened a folder, but he is not sure what will be in the legislation.
He said he worked with County Superintendent-elect Don Covey who was working
with the West Valley school districts, but in the interest of legal caution, he
pulled out of those negotiations. What arose so far was focusing on the
timeline if the West Valley plan goes through because there will be about six
months where there will be a board of about
26 members who have to approve a new budget and new superintendent; therefore, consideration
is being given to extending the timeline once again for the actual operational
date of the district to July 1 of the next fiscal year after the new board is
elected at the general election in 2010. This is only a proposal (Attachments
13 and 14). He does not know what will happen with the litigation, but as of
now, the West Valley plan is going forward. The timeline was extended last
year to 2010, so this is another six-month extension to get the new board and
new district lined up for operation as closely as possible. The rest allows the
26-member board to work on intergovernmental agreements and gives the board the
power to do what needs to be done.
Mr. Thomas related that he talked with Chairman Shultz on multiple occasions and does not want to do a disservice to unification, but in casting a wide net with the first proposals, he believes the SDRC “scared away big game.” He said he is concerned about when this will stop. At every forum he attended, he heard about local control and does not believe it is right for him to cast a vote on what someone in Yuma is doing with their public schools. He submitted that doing this Statewide would not only do a disservice to the local control aspect, but could also poison unification, which already raises hackles with some people.
Discussion Regarding Revision and Resubmission of Unification Plans
Chairman Shultz stated that the SDRC has the authority under the original laws to resubmit unification plans based on a review of election results.
Mr. Naugle moved that the Commission send back to the voters the proposal to unify the Pearce, Ash Creek and Elfrida Elementary schools with the Valley Union High School District.
Mr. Naugle said this would equate to a school district with 454 young people in the center core part of Cochise County. He talked to many people within the four counties he worked in and received input from leadership in the area that if the proposal was recast, the local community would support it wholeheartedly. He added that Pearce and Elfrida Elementary Districts voted to unify and the vote in the Ash Creek Elementary area failed by eight votes.
Mr. Harding seconded the motion.
Ms. Leyva said this is the end of the SDRC and they need to stop with the voters. She is also concerned about the cost of elections for the school districts.
Mr. Schoaf stated that under
Section 5 of SB 1068, the SDRC no longer exists after
December 31, 2008, so it is not possible to come up with some 11th
hour revision to the plans the Commissioners spent two years adopting and then provide
for a way to get those new plans before the voters. He said this is his
opinion as a lawyer, and it is also the opinion of one of the larger firms that
does government law in Phoenix. If the SDRC tries to do something beyond that,
someone will end up being sued and even more money will be wasted. If anything
needs to be done on unification, it should be pursued through the Legislature.
Mr. Naugle noted that the legislation says the SDRC could review the results of the election and recast it. The motion merely reflects input he received from the community, so the Members are not voting against him personally.
Chairman Shultz commented that it may be best to appeal to the districts that have the authority to put this on the ballot, and the other Members agreed.
Mr. Naugle withdrew the motion and Mr. Harding withdrew the second.
Chairman Shultz thanked the Members for their work.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
December 18, 2008
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office: video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov).
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
2
SCHOOL DISTRICT
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
December 9, 2008
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------