ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
School District Redistricting Commission
Minutes of the Meeting
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
2:00 p.m., House Hearing Room 5
Members Present:
|
Martin Shultz, Chairman |
Rita Leyva |
|
Susan Bitter Smith |
Dave Naugle |
|
Jay Blanchard |
Thomas Schoaf |
|
Art Harding |
Kent Scribner |
|
Jay Kaprosy |
Joseph Thomas |
Members Absent:
|
Vicki Anderson |
|
|
Dr. Sandra Dowling |
|
|
Doris Goodale |
|
Chairman Shultz called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. and the attendance was noted.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mr. Shultz announced that letters from John Wright, President, Arizona Education Association (Attachment A) and Arthur Tate, Superintendent, Tempe School District No. 3 (Attachment B), an email from Jeff Simmons, Chief Financial Officer, Buckeye Union High School District (Attachment C), a packet of questions e-mailed to the School District Redistricting Commission’s (SDRC) website (Attachment D), a handout entitled “SDRC East Valley Tax Rate Comparison Current vs. Proposed (Based on 2006 Annual Financial Report)” (Attachment E), and a handout entitled “SDRC North Central Tax Rate Comparison Current vs. Proposed (Based on 2006 Annual Financial Report)” (Attachment F) have been provided to the Commission members.
REVIEW OF THE REVISED SDRC FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Ken Behringer, General Counsel, reviewed new questions that were added to the SDRC frequently asked questions index, referring to a handout entitled “Frequently Asked Questions About Arizona School Redistricting” (Attachment G).
FINAL DETERMINATION OF UNIFICATION PLANS
The Commission members discussed and voted on the SDRC unification plans, referring to a handout entitled “The School District Redistricting Commission State of Arizona” (Attachment H).
Apache County Plan
Mr. Shultz stated there were no proposed changes to the Apache County Plan due to the long distances and there being no unification.
Cochise County Plan
Mr. Naugle moved the Cochise County Plan 1 proposed redistricting plan be recommended and included in the final report that is to be submitted to the Governor, the motion was seconded by Mr. Harding.
The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 8-2-3 (Attachment 1).
Coconino County Plan
Mr. Shultz stated there were no proposed changes to the Coconino County Plan.
Gila County Plan
Mr. Shultz stated there were no proposed changes to the Gila County Plan.
Graham County Plan
Mr. Shultz stated there were no proposed changes to the Graham County Plan.
Greenlee County Plan
Mr. Shultz stated there were no proposed changes to the Greenlee County Plan.
La Paz County Plan
Mr. Blanchard moved the La Paz County Plan 2 proposed redistricting plan be recommended and included in the final report that is to be submitted to the Governor, the motion was seconded by Ms. Bitter Smith.
The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 10-0-3 (Attachment 1).
Maricopa County Central Plan
Wilma Basnett, Ph.D., Superintendent, Osborn School District No. 8, testified in opposition to the SDRC Maricopa Central Plans and answered questions posed by the Commission members. Dr. Basnett also provided the Commission with a copy of her statement (Attachment I).
Mr. Scribner stated he would abstain from moving or voting on either plan due to a conflict of interest.
Mr. Blanchard moved the Maricopa County Central Plan 2 proposed redistricting plan be recommended and included in the final report that is to be submitted to the Governor, the motion was seconded by Mr. Harding.
Bill Moss, Consultant, Isaac School District, answered questions regarding the change in tax rates as a result of unification.
Mr. Thomas provided the Commission with a handout entitled “The Effects of the Career Ladder Program on Student Achievement” (Attachment J).
The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 6-3-4 (Attachment 1).
In explanation of her vote, Ms. Bitter Smith stated “I have listened to not only other school board members in Phoenix Union but from parents as well. There has been input back and forth on the proposals and, quite frankly, the Board members in the Central area that I have talked to have great concerns about the five district plan. I am concerned about the override election results. I sense this is a very troubling financial disaster for many of the small districts because since the overrides didn’t pass I am now very much attune to looking at consolidating overhead costs and administrative costs so the children do get the best bang for their buck and the dollars can go into the classroom. With those points in mind, and I honestly don’t know the success rate of this particular proposal with the voters, I think it eliminates many of the concerns I heard from parents and teachers about eliminating choices in schools and an opportunity to put more dollars in the classroom because it is, at the end of the day, what is best for children. With that understanding in mind and doing the best job that I can with all of your collective input I vote ‘Aye’.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Kaprosy stated “I have listened to a great deal and I have read a great deal. I have spoken with fellow commissioners, I have spoken with individuals in the community, sometimes heated and sometimes in agreement, nowhere near groupthink because, in fact, my explanation will be very different than Susan’s and probably different than Marty’s and other individuals that are here. This is a group of individuals that have put an enormous amount of work into this. I don’t think that we have abdicated our authority. There is a great deal of work that goes on outside of this Commission as has been seen by the number of visits that individuals have made. Every member, quite frankly, has done a great deal more than I have as a late comer to this committee, but this is a Commission that I have watched very closely. There are no decisions that are taken lightly. These are all considered very significantly.
In that context, and explaining my vote in terms of this motion to unify Phoenix Union and its feeder districts, I don’t exactly love the idea of having a district that is more than 100,000 students. I do believe that there are inefficiencies that will occur when a district becomes that big. Administrative spending, I don’t care, quite frankly, as long as the kids are getting what they need and the education is being moved forward. The difficulty that I have, having been around the block for a long time, is that I do see serious difficulties in Phoenix Union and its feeder districts. It is where a huge majority of students are being served in this state. It is an area where, from my understanding, historically, there have been disconnects, serious disconnects, and impacts on students when they move from an elementary district to the high school district. I think this is something that we can change by forcing more communication to occur in a unified setting. I am hopeful that, if approved by the voters, if this district were to be formed as a mega district of sorts that the school board will step up to its responsibility to identify strategies in order to address the needs of students in that setting. I am confident that can happen. There are other strategies that have worked in other places in which smaller portions of the district are treated under similar policies but still have some autonomy. There are plenty of different ways that this can be addressed. It is something I have given a great deal of thought to and is not something in which I simply just jumped on board with individuals who I share a Commission with me or folks in the community. With that I do vote ‘Aye’.”
Maricopa County East Valley Plan
Mr. Harding moved the Maricopa County East Valley Plan 1 proposed redistricting plan be recommended and included in the final report that is to be submitted to the Governor, the motion was seconded by Mr. Naugle.
Sue Knudson, Governing Board President, Kyrene School District, testified in opposition to the SDRC Maricopa East Valley Plans and answered questions posed by the Commission members. Ms. Knudson also provided a handout entitled “Kyrene School District Redistricting Position Statements” (Attachment K).
The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 6-4-3 (Attachment 1).
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Kaprosy stated “I came in today assuming that I knew exactly how I was going to vote on this but in the end my mind hasn’t been changed. It has swayed back and forth through the discussion and I have given it serious consideration and maybe that is why I reacted such to your comments. This is one area that historically has been an excellent candidate for unification because of the opportunity to bring two elementary districts together into a high school district. This is an area that you may see administrative costs because of how the districts are set up and the caliber of the folks who are in these districts. I personally believe it will benefit students to unify this area. I don’t think it is going to pass, quite frankly, and I am concerned that it will not pass for the wrong reasons. These are very different districts and while I think reasonable people have arrived at a conclusion that it doesn’t make financial sense others have stood in the way of it for vastly different reasons that are less genuine. I am voting ‘Aye’ today with the hope of giving this community the opportunity to consider it and as a population to consider what is in the best interest of this area. This is in particular one of those areas that I am concerned that one district has the ability to veto the plan for the rest of the individuals who are in that area and this is why I am voting ‘Aye’ today.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Naugle stated “I am the only member, I think, from southern Arizona but I resided in this district for about 15-20 years. My wife and I were both formally and informally involved very actively in all three of those districts. My three children were educated in the elementary districts and all graduated from one of the high schools. I vote ‘Aye’.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Schoaf stated “This is an interesting district and if we had adopted a process at the start we could have spent a great deal of time to try and understand why this is a good idea or a bad idea. It particularly troubles me when we have districts that are already very large. You also have one of the two districts that is significantly better in terms of the amount of dollars that it gets into the classroom and you wonder what will happen when you try to combine all three and you take a culture that obviously has been very successful and just assume that somehow that culture is going to breed. It may not breed but get stamped out because it is going to be overwhelmed by two other districts that are larger and have significantly less ability to get money into the classrooms, almost 10% less, which is a very large number. You also have districts that are truly doing very well, Kyrene in particular, with a number of excelling and highly performing schools. Again, you are taking a very successful district and hoping that if we throw it into the mix and make some sausage that it is going to come out a better district when it comes out the other end. I don’t know if we would have come to that conclusion if we spent a long time on it but I think it deserves a lot more effort than what we put into it. I happen to agree that it is very unlikely this will pass because of the ability of either of these districts to veto it. What we do is we take districts, particularly in the case of two districts, with a number of excelling and high performing schools and instead of congratulating them we are going to force them to spend time and effort to unify, which takes away their focus from the classroom and I don’t understand why this is a good idea so I am going to vote ‘No’.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Thomas stated “Absent any compelling reason for unification and denied the ability to hear that from any of the Commission members I vote ‘No’.”
Maricopa County North Central Plan
Mr. Harding moved the Maricopa County North Central Plan 2 proposed redistricting plan be recommended and included in the final report that is to be submitted to the Governor, the motion was seconded by Mr. Naugle.
Kevin Hegarty, Deputy Superintendent for Business Services, Glendale Elementary School District, testified in opposition to the SDRC unification plans and answered questions posed by the Commission members.
Steve Johnston, President, Glendale Elementary School District Governing Board, testified in opposition to the SDRC unification plans and answered questions posed by the Commission members.
The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 7-3-3 (Attachment 1).
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Kaprosy stated “I reserve the right to vote against it when it comes to my ballot, if it comes to my ballot. At this point I think the process of having further discussions about how this will specifically impact the district and going through the process of having the vote is going to be instructional to the community, ultimately beneficial, regardless of the result. At this point I vote ‘Aye’.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Schoaf stated “Glendale Union High School submitted a response in August that contains very interesting data and raises a number of questions that we have not answered. Specifically in this report it is noted that the unified district in the state that would be most similar to their district in size is located in Tucson and it goes through the published financial information about the Tucson unified district and notes that the general administrative cost per pupil in that district is $76.07. The three districts combined, if they do not incur a significant amount of extra expenses because all of a sudden they are a 50,000 student district, would average about $36 per pupil. There does not appear to be any administrative savings that are going to come from combining these two. It also provides several pages of examples of articulation that they do between the high school district and the elementary districts. There is a learning system that is designed to try and make sure there is proper articulation for students as they go into the high school. I do not see a benefit from a financial or from an articulation and education standpoint that is going to be better for the children so I vote ‘No’.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Thomas stated “Commissioner Schoaf said much of what I would have said. I do have faith in some of the research that has been done and I would not want to impugn researchers or leave anyone to think they are victims of groupthink either. Research does say that SES size matters in school districts, it certainly matters in school sizes, and it matters in classroom sizes. I also do not see any compelling reason to unify at this time and for those reasons I vote ‘No’.”
Mohave County Plan
Mr. Blanchard moved the Mohave County Plan 2 proposed redistricting plan be recommended and included in the final report that is to be submitted to the Governor, the motion was seconded by Mr. Naugle.
William Allsbrooks, Superintendent, Bullhead City Elementary School District, testified in support of the SDRC unification plan and answered questions posed by the Commission members.
The motion CARRIED with a roll call vote of 10-0-3 (Attachment 1).
In explanation of her vote, Ms. Bitter Smith stated “I am going to vote ‘Aye’ with the understanding, obviously, that we need to see the ballot language in the next meeting.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Blanchard stated “Topock, for those members who recently joined the Commission, joins Yucca, Owens Whitney, Valentine, and Hackberry as districts that were left out of the mix in Mohave County because of its size and I vote ‘Yes’.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Schoaf stated “I am going to vote ‘Yes’ on this for a couple of reasons. I think it is very significant that the three school governing boards have come together and supported this plan. It gives a higher likelihood for success and it means someone who is familiar with local data, that we are now familiar with, has passed on this as being something good for kids in their districts. For that reason I am going to vote ‘Yes’ subject to an answer as to what happens to that piece of the high school district that overlays the Topock Elementary District.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Thomas stated “This plan is strategic, it is selective, it is smart, it takes into account what is going on individually, it is not a one size fits all blanket unification plan and I applaud you for your votes and I vote ‘Yes’.”
In explanation of his vote, Mr. Kaprosy stated “I think Mr. Blanchard’s final comment is the one that helps with my ‘Aye’ vote which is, there are other districts that were left alone in this area so I am going to defer to the work of the Committee, much of which happened before I was here, and at the same time take the opportunity to applaud the districts that are working towards unification in that area and with that I vote ‘Aye’.”
SDRC NEXT MEETINGS
Mr. Shultz announced final determination of unification plans will continue during next week’s meeting on Tuesday, November 20, 2007, at 2:00 P.M.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Ritz
Committee Secretary
(Audio recordings and attachments on file in the Secretary of Senate’s Office/Resource Center, Room 115).
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
School District Redistricting Commission
November 13, 2007
Page 8
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------