ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

 

SCHOOL DISTRICT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

 

Minutes of the Meeting

Thursday, October 11, 2007

2:00 p.m., House Hearing Room 5

 

 

Members Present:

Martin Shultz, Chairman

Dave Naugle

Susan Bitter Smith

Thomas Schoaf

Doris Goodale

Kent Scribner

Art Harding

Joseph Thomas

Rita Leyva

 

 

 

Members Absent:

Dr. Sandra Dowling

 

Members Excused:

Vicki Anderson

Jay Blanchard

 

Staff:

Marlene Johnston, Arizona Department of Education

 

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Chairman Shultz. Chairman Shultz noted a quorum was present. He asked the members to introduce themselves:

 

·      Thomas Schoaf – Mayor of Litchfield Park

·      Joseph Thomas – Public School Teacher, Mesa School District

·      Rita Leyva – Chief Deputy County School Superintendent of Yavapai County

·      Doris Goodale – Kingman Unified School Board Member

·      Martin Shultz – Vice-President of Government Affairs, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, Arizona Public Service

·      Art Harding – Director of Legislative Affairs, Arizona Department of Education (ADE)

·      Dave Naugle – Southwest Gas Corp. in Tucson, Governing Board of Sonoita Elementary School District #25

·      Kent Scribner – Superintendent of the Isaac School District

·      Susan Bitter Smith – Balsz Elementary School Board Member

 

Mr. Harding distributed a book of information “School District Redistricting Commission” (Attachment A), a memo from the School District Redistricting Commission (SDRC) (Attachment B), response letters to the SDRC (Attachment C) and a letter to Senator Linda Gray (Attachment D).

Mr. Shultz explained that Attachment A is a book of data that has been compiled by the Commission and some response letters from the districts.  He explained that Attachment B is a rough draft of the agenda which includes what the Commission is and what it is charged to do.  He stated that the Commission would discuss the proposition by the Phoenix Union High School District, the letter written by Rita Leyva to Senator Linda Gray, Senate Bill 1164, and items from Ken Behringer, General Council and Arizona Legislative Council.

 

Ms. Leyva stated that the letter she wrote is addressed to Senator Gray and lists items that have not been addressed or researched adequately. 

 

Mr. Shultz stated that Ms. Leyva addressed some significant issues and he wanted the Commission to address each issue as listed in the letter.

 

Ms. Leyva stated that she does not believe that the Commission has addressed the fiscal implications to some of the districts being reviewed.  She said that the Commission had not given the districts all the information they requested concerning anticipated changes in their tax rates.

 

Mr. Shultz said that these things should have been solved before this point.

 

Ms. Bitter Smith stated that there were several questions raised by her school district that were not addressed in the FAQ sheet that was sent out.  She questioned whose responsibility it is to provide the answers. 

 

Mr. Shultz stated that the Commission did ask for some legislative changes including last year’s adjustment.  He said that ways to handle it have been discussed but not yet pinpointed. 

 

Ms. Leyva stated that the primary and secondary tax issues have not been addressed.  She said that the larger districts have their own staff to do predictions and find answers but the majority of districts that are involved do not have the resources to get this information for themselves. 

 

Mr. Shultz asked if this is the Commission’s responsibility.  He said that many of the districts savings will not exist with unification.

 

Ms. Leyva said that she agrees with the districts.  She stated that someone should provide the districts with the information they need so they can make good decisions.

 

Mr. Thomas stated without prior knowledge of what will happen to primary and secondary tax rates, he has difficulty supporting the plan.

 

Ms. Leyva said that the career ladder funding and overrides need to be investigated to see what effects redistricting will have on these forms of funding.

 

Mr. Thomas stated that many schools do not have career ladder and there is a current lawsuit to check the legality.

 

Ms. Leyva noted some important issues are teacher experience, index issues and salary schedules.  She said that many school districts do not have the resources to determine how these issues will be impacted.

 

Mr. Shultz stated that the district managers are able to do estimates on salary increases.  The question he has is whether or not the districts have the resources or are they not willing to do those kind of calculations.  He said that he does not think it is accurate to say that by reducing three districts down to one, would not save money.

 

Ms. Leyva said that ADE would be better equipped to do the estimates.

 

Ken Behringer, General Council, Arizona Legislative Council, stated that statute currently provides that the part of a district that has career ladders could continue to have that. If a whole career ladder program is to be put in, it would need to be funded and there would have to be legislative expansion or approval.  He said there is mechanism in the statute to handle the situation of combining two districts where only one district has career ladders.

 

Mr. Thomas asked if the statute is in the original form, when a career ladder was adopted.  He asked where funding would come from.

 

Mr. Behringer said that the statute has not changed and that the Legislature would have to appropriate funding for more schools to join the program.

 

Mr. Thomas stated that to do anything that might adversely affect the career ladder program, which is a highly successful and researched program, is reckless.  He said that all areas of funding need to be looked at very carefully before any action is taken. 

 

Mr. Shultz asked, if the Legislature does not change career ladders before elections, would Mr. Thomas suggest no redistricting take place.

 

Mr. Thomas said that unifications are not needed immediately and answers for funding must be identified before changes are made.

 

Mr. Shultz said that everyone needs to be fully informed before the commission votes.

 

Ms. Leyva stated that the answers have not been given as to whether, if unified, the districts could get new facilities without going to bond.  Would they be eligible for School Facilities Board (SFB) funding?

 

Mr. Behringer said that it depends upon the individual districts.

 

Mr. Thomas said the law states that in unification, salaries cannot be lowered, he asked if that is for one year only? 

 

Mr. Shultz said that in his opinion yes, but they have to apply for the space.

 

Mr. Behringer said that he interpreted the law as being more than one year, but the statute is not specific.

 

Ms. Leyva asked if compliance with the voting rights act can be confirmed before ballots are made.

 

Mr. Behringer said that the Justice Department will not look at the subject without the actual ballots in front of them.

 

Ms. Bitter Smith stated that a source needs to be identified so each district can get specific answers on how it would relate to that district.

 

Mr. Shultz suggested that the Commission and staff attempt to improve in detail any answers to any questions in the FAQs where it is reasonable to do so.  He said that there are some very big issues in education that are part of the uncertainty in these situations.  Mr. Shultz said that the Commission will take the initiative to get clarification from the Speaker, the President, the Committee Chairs, anybody who has any authority in this matter.  He said that ADE can set up meetings with the districts to help get estimates and clarifications for their questions. 

 

Mr. Thomas asked if it would take legislation to alter the timeline that the Commission must adhere to.

 

Mr. Behringer stated that yes it would take legislation to alter the timeline.

 

Mr. Shultz referenced the letter from the Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD) Governing Board (included in Attachment A).  He read that they recommended instead of the PUHSD being divided up that it instead be combined with the 13 elementary school districts contiguous with PUHSD.  Mr. Shultz said that this option should be put to the Commission to do data research and discussion.

 

Representative Lujan stated that the PUHSD Governing Board’s position is that the districts should stay as they currently are.  He said that each of the feeder districts should have an opportunity to respond before the proposal goes to the Governor.

 

William Allsbrooks, Bullhead City Elementary School District, stated that the district supports Unification Plan 2, the two-district plan.  He stated that his impression in the beginning was that it was up to the districts to answer all the questions.  He said that in the Mohave Plan only the secondary tax rate is affected.  He said it becomes increasingly difficult trying to estimate new tax rates and estimated values.  He stated that his opinion is that all the districts can do the estimates, but may not have the motivation or time.  That the main priority needs to be children and that Arizona needs to reevaluate their priorities. 

 

Laura Knaperek, Parent Unification Committee, distributed a letter to the SDRC (Attachment E) and explained that the meetings the Committee held consisted of parents.  The main interest of the committee is for the kids to get the best education possible.  The unification plans sent by the SDRC were discussed, as were alternatives. 

 

Mr. Thomas wanted to make sure everyone was aware that there might not be anything on the ballot about this.

 

Ms. Knaperek said that her committee’s understanding was that there would be something on the ballot.

 

Paula Eaton, parent, Riverside Elementary School District, distributed a packet of research (Attachment F) and explained that as shown in the research she presented, there is a great need for vertical articulation.  She stated that there are too many differences between curriculums and requirements among the districts.

 

Ms. Smith said that there is a need for curriculum unification.

 

Ms. Eaton stated that money is an issue, but the main emphasis needs to be the kids.

 

Mr. Shultz stated that it is Senate Bill 1164 that the Commission will be discussing.  He suggested that a written list of questions be given to Legislative Council and the written responses could be sent to each member of the Commission.  He said some of the questions concern transporting districts, changing the reporting to September 15th, review of potential impact on facilities needs due to unification, Superintendent contract buyout, and the system for Governing Board Members. 

 

Mr. Naugle said that in his experience the Commission did recommend unification for transporting districts.

 

Mr. Shultz asked if the commissioners wanted to discuss some recommendations or wait to hear any until all questions have been answered.

 

Mr. Schoaf stated that the process needs to be consistent and all the same questions are answered.

 

Mr. Harding suggested discussing a few of the recommendations in case more questions arise and then the commissions will be ready before others are discussed.

 

Mr. Naugle said he could start his reporting on Pima County.  That the recommendation was to unify Altar Valley with San Fernando, however the two districts are against unification.  He recommends to rate San Fernando as an isolated rural district.  He recommends that Altar change from a K-8 to a K-12 district.  He says they have the growth and number of students to support that.

Mr. Shultz questioned the growth rate at Altar Valley.

 

Mr. Naugle said that he did not have the numbers, but there is a lot of development going on in that area indicating a lot of growth.

 

Mr. Thomas questioned where Alter Valley high school students currently go to school.

 

Mr. Naugle said that they bus the kids into Flowing Wells which is a significant bus ride.

 

Mr. Harding asked if there are specific questions for each district and what some of those questions are.

 

Mr. Schoaf said questions regarding what effect a change will have on facilities, budgets and funding are possible.

 

Mr. Shultz said the commission cannot make the decision for the School Board, however the commission can give them enough information to understand the ramifications of their decision.  He explained that with open enrollment the district might have the facilities for the students but the students might choose to go elsewhere. 

 

Ms. Leyva stated that initially the funding may not change but the source of the funding could change.

 

Mr. Harding stated that it would be tough to predict funding due to variables on the local level, however a general scenario could probably be worked up.

 

Mr. Naugle explained Cochise County has Palomino District which is K-8 and will continue to grow because of over flow in Sierra Vista.  He stated that as a K-8 district the students have a choice of about four high schools.  Palomino District is concerned that if they become a K-12 district the students may not have that choice.  He said that he recommends that Palomino District become a K-12 district.  He said that District A (Attachment A) is a high school district that covers about 80% of the affected area with about seven or eight elementary districts which are all very small.  The smaller districts are concerned about losing their free budget capabilities. 

 

Ms. Leyva said the plan that has been discussed is to phase out the small school adjustment over four or five years.

 

Mr. Shultz said that the charge of the Commission is to take many things into consideration including what the districts say.  He said that it is not to just listen to the districts and abide by their wishes.

 

Mr. Thomas said that the Commission either does the homework or understands all the consequences of unification in each instance or we listen to the districts.  He said he cannot support unification without research.

 

Mr. Shultz questioned what the Commission should do if a quick fix is not found for career ladders, excess utilities, and desegregation.

 

Mr. Thomas said that the Commission should go no farther until it has the answers.

 

Mr. Naugle said that career ladders and funding were not issues in the Counties he is reporting on.  For Palomino the issue was, will the students still have a choice in High Schools.

 

Mr. Naugle stated that in Pinal County there is a rural area between Phoenix and Tucson that is new developments.  He said that the area along I-10 is served by two high schools; Casa Grande and Santa Cruz, and numerous elementary districts serving the area.  He said that Plan 1 echoed the elementary boundaries.  Plan 2 moved the elementary districts into the two high school districts.  He said that the responses he got were mainly a need to keep their feeling of community within the schools.  That is most closely seen in Plan 1, and that is what he recommends.

 

Mr. Schoaf questioned the district boundaries going through the middle of subdivisions.

 

Mr. Naugle said that there is not a lot of growth and boundaries are indistinct at this time.

 

Mr. Naugle said that District A, on the map in Attachment A, has taken a vote to create a K-12 district.  District B, Oracle, has requested the opportunity to work towards its own K-12 as growth allows.  The District C recommendation is to unify the elementary district with the high school in Casa Grande.  The District D recommendation is to unify Eloy and Santa Cruz.

 

Mr. Naugle said that Plan 1 was supposed to create a number of unified K-12 districts on the boundaries of the current elementary districts.  He said that most comments received were in favor of that.  The public needs to make some decisions on where boundaries would be before all the buildings go in for the developments that are planned.

 

Mr. Naugle recommends that the Santa Cruz Elementary District be left alone.  He said that Patagonia Elementary and High School Districts be unified as a K-12 district.  He recommends that Sonoita and Empire be allowed to develop as a K-12

district.

 

Mr. Shultz stated that some issues can be moved forward and there will be some issues that the Arizona Legislature and the courts will not be able to resolve in the time frame.  He said that through letters and meetings the Commission can put emphasis on the larger issues that have been brought up today.

 

Mr. Schoaf said that in the legislation the Commission is told to look at the issue of career ladders but it does not provide recommendations on how to fix it.

Mr. Shultz suggested that the Commission continue on and at the same time go to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Linda Gray, and the Legislature to get answers and possible resolutions to these questions.  He said that the questions could be asked of Leadership.

 

Mr. Thomas requested that the questions be put to Democratic Leadership as well.

 

Mr. Shultz questioned the members about the dates for future meetings.  He said he would put out an email to the members for availability on those dates.

 

Mr. Harding thanked Marlene Johnston for standing in for staff.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:34 p.m.

 

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

                                                                                    Shelley Ponce

                                                                                    Committee Secretary

 

(Tapes and attachments on file in the Secretary of the Senate’s Office/Resource Center, Room 115.)

 

 

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

SCHOOL DISTRICT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

October 11, 2007

Page 2

 

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