 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Current Issue Links
A realignment of board representation in the Sierra Sands Unified School District could pave the way for a
reduction of the seven-member board.
In a special meeting Monday night, the board, along with district officials, heard a presentation from legal
counsel about the need to revise current trustee-residence areas.
Voters currently vote for six IWV residents and one Rand resident for four-year terms on staggered cycles
(three of the seven seats are up this year, the other four are up in 2014). The makeup of the board dates back
to a unification in 1974 of several districts, which included those that represented Ridgecrest, China Lake and
Rand.
Today, the seat reserved for Rand is elected from a population of 377, some 120 of whom are registered
voters. According to Grant Herndon, the law requires that districts reflect a proportionate percentage of the
population.
reduction of the seven-member board.
In a special meeting Monday night, the board, along with district officials, heard a presentation from legal
counsel about the need to revise current trustee-residence areas.
Voters currently vote for six IWV residents and one Rand resident for four-year terms on staggered cycles
(three of the seven seats are up this year, the other four are up in 2014). The makeup of the board dates back
to a unification in 1974 of several districts, which included those that represented Ridgecrest, China Lake and
Rand.
Today, the seat reserved for Rand is elected from a population of 377, some 120 of whom are registered
voters. According to Grant Herndon, the law requires that districts reflect a proportionate percentage of the
population.
Since the entire service area has a population of more than 35,000, the Rand boundaries would need to
be significantly extended to include the mandated population target of 5,000, or the trustee area would need to
be abolished so that trustees were not restricted to any specific district.
Trustee Bill Farris said that it is clear that the district has to do something, since it is neither in compliance
with regulation nor accurate in reflecting the modern demographics of the community. He added that if the
district were simply expanded, it would only create an area that had no clear focus of interest.
Each trustee, including current Rand representative Judy Dietrich-son, agreed and the board move
forward with appropriate procedures to accomplish the single district with seven at-large members.
The second issue under board consideration was the reduction to a five-member board. This action was
met with mixed support from the board, and even the staff, but local resident and former trustee David Burdick
strongly encouraged the board to move forward with that plan.
“When I sat on that side of the table, I brought up this very issue before the board 25 years ago, and they
decided not to act.”
He said that the district has been “singularly blessed with high-quality members from the Rand district,”
and expressed his faith that such would continue to be the case with the abolishment of the special district.
He said that the unification promise to take over bonded indebtedness and pay it off has been met, and
that the promise to hold a seat for the Rand district has outlived its usefulness.
“I would first of all urge you to pass this. One of the most important consequences will be that it paves the
way for an even more important change, which is a reduction from seven to five,” said Burdick.
Dietrichson said she posted the notice of the meeting at the Randsburg Post Office and that at least 20
people had called her to ask her about it. She said that each of those residents, once they heard the issue
explained, said they understood the necessity.
Herndon went on to discuss the potential benefits to reducing the size of the board. One of the primary
reasons he listed was cost, as the board has been criticized by the Kern County Grand Jury and local
bargaining units for the expense of the board. One member estimated that a reduction would save the district
up to $25,000 a year.
Farris said that he has recommended the reduction several times over the last few years, and that
although the cost savings would be a benefit, the reason he supports reduction is that a five-member board is
simply more efficient.
He said that lightening the load on administration was an important benefit of reduction. “This has always
been about trying to refine the process,” particularly important when diminished budgets are increasing the
requirements on existing staff.
“And one factor we have not talked about in the past is that we have lost almost 30 percent of our students
in 20 years. Every indication is that it doesn’t make sense to maintain a seven-member board.”
The district was given the option of applying for a waiver for an election to reduce. Approval of the waiver is
dependent upon the district’s ability to demonstrate that it has communicated the action to all stakeholders,
and collect and record a position of support, opposition or neutrality from unions, school-site councils and
advisory committees.
Farris said that he did not want to leap ahead without careful thought and process, but he wanted to see
the board pursue reduction as expediently as possible.
Dietrichson agreed that it was time for a reduction, but expressed concern about moving ahead so quickly
— particularly since the deadline for submitting the waiver request was only 30 days away.
Boardmember Kurt Rockwell suggested that the board move forward with the waiver, since the district
has until May to pull the waiver request after it is submitted. He pointed out that moving the reduction process
up to the 2012 election rather than waiting until 2014 would save the district about $50,000.
Herndon said the process, if the board chooses that direction, would be to reduce the board by one
member during each of the next two elections, which would mean that for two years the district would have a
six-member board. Though an even-member board is not the preferred makeup, he said it meets legal
requirements and spreads the reduction out fairly among current seatholders.
Superintendent Joanna Rummer said that her concern in moving forward too quickly is that processes
tend to be established so that agencies can avoid being blindsided by any potentially negative impacts. “Just
to reduce the board is not a reason. I know that it will save costs, but let’s make sure we don’t have
unintended consequences for a board that has functioned so well for so many years.”
Boardmember Amy Covert said that she is not convinced that a reduction is necessary. She
recommended that the board explore other options to achieving that cost savings. She added that the impact
of a reduction on the community will be huge and should not be done without community input.
“I think the only people who care whether we are a five- or seven-member board are here right now,” said
Rockwell.
“If we get through this process and put together a waiver and the next day we have a massive
groundswell, we can withdraw the request. I think we really have a lot of time to get public feedback.
“The real question is, do we want to save money now or in two years?”
Burdick seconded this approach. “Let’s see if there is a tidal wave after that. My suspicious is there won’t
be. My suspicion is that you have already heard from everyone who is interested. You are not lacking in a
sampling.”
The board agreed that it would schedule a special meeting, tentatively scheduled for Feb. 9 at 8 p.m. in
City Council Chambers, and then hold a second public hearing at the board’s regularly scheduled meeting on
Feb. 16.
be significantly extended to include the mandated population target of 5,000, or the trustee area would need to
be abolished so that trustees were not restricted to any specific district.
Trustee Bill Farris said that it is clear that the district has to do something, since it is neither in compliance
with regulation nor accurate in reflecting the modern demographics of the community. He added that if the
district were simply expanded, it would only create an area that had no clear focus of interest.
Each trustee, including current Rand representative Judy Dietrich-son, agreed and the board move
forward with appropriate procedures to accomplish the single district with seven at-large members.
The second issue under board consideration was the reduction to a five-member board. This action was
met with mixed support from the board, and even the staff, but local resident and former trustee David Burdick
strongly encouraged the board to move forward with that plan.
“When I sat on that side of the table, I brought up this very issue before the board 25 years ago, and they
decided not to act.”
He said that the district has been “singularly blessed with high-quality members from the Rand district,”
and expressed his faith that such would continue to be the case with the abolishment of the special district.
He said that the unification promise to take over bonded indebtedness and pay it off has been met, and
that the promise to hold a seat for the Rand district has outlived its usefulness.
“I would first of all urge you to pass this. One of the most important consequences will be that it paves the
way for an even more important change, which is a reduction from seven to five,” said Burdick.
Dietrichson said she posted the notice of the meeting at the Randsburg Post Office and that at least 20
people had called her to ask her about it. She said that each of those residents, once they heard the issue
explained, said they understood the necessity.
Herndon went on to discuss the potential benefits to reducing the size of the board. One of the primary
reasons he listed was cost, as the board has been criticized by the Kern County Grand Jury and local
bargaining units for the expense of the board. One member estimated that a reduction would save the district
up to $25,000 a year.
Farris said that he has recommended the reduction several times over the last few years, and that
although the cost savings would be a benefit, the reason he supports reduction is that a five-member board is
simply more efficient.
He said that lightening the load on administration was an important benefit of reduction. “This has always
been about trying to refine the process,” particularly important when diminished budgets are increasing the
requirements on existing staff.
“And one factor we have not talked about in the past is that we have lost almost 30 percent of our students
in 20 years. Every indication is that it doesn’t make sense to maintain a seven-member board.”
The district was given the option of applying for a waiver for an election to reduce. Approval of the waiver is
dependent upon the district’s ability to demonstrate that it has communicated the action to all stakeholders,
and collect and record a position of support, opposition or neutrality from unions, school-site councils and
advisory committees.
Farris said that he did not want to leap ahead without careful thought and process, but he wanted to see
the board pursue reduction as expediently as possible.
Dietrichson agreed that it was time for a reduction, but expressed concern about moving ahead so quickly
— particularly since the deadline for submitting the waiver request was only 30 days away.
Boardmember Kurt Rockwell suggested that the board move forward with the waiver, since the district
has until May to pull the waiver request after it is submitted. He pointed out that moving the reduction process
up to the 2012 election rather than waiting until 2014 would save the district about $50,000.
Herndon said the process, if the board chooses that direction, would be to reduce the board by one
member during each of the next two elections, which would mean that for two years the district would have a
six-member board. Though an even-member board is not the preferred makeup, he said it meets legal
requirements and spreads the reduction out fairly among current seatholders.
Superintendent Joanna Rummer said that her concern in moving forward too quickly is that processes
tend to be established so that agencies can avoid being blindsided by any potentially negative impacts. “Just
to reduce the board is not a reason. I know that it will save costs, but let’s make sure we don’t have
unintended consequences for a board that has functioned so well for so many years.”
Boardmember Amy Covert said that she is not convinced that a reduction is necessary. She
recommended that the board explore other options to achieving that cost savings. She added that the impact
of a reduction on the community will be huge and should not be done without community input.
“I think the only people who care whether we are a five- or seven-member board are here right now,” said
Rockwell.
“If we get through this process and put together a waiver and the next day we have a massive
groundswell, we can withdraw the request. I think we really have a lot of time to get public feedback.
“The real question is, do we want to save money now or in two years?”
Burdick seconded this approach. “Let’s see if there is a tidal wave after that. My suspicious is there won’t
be. My suspicion is that you have already heard from everyone who is interested. You are not lacking in a
sampling.”
The board agreed that it would schedule a special meeting, tentatively scheduled for Feb. 9 at 8 p.m. in
City Council Chambers, and then hold a second public hearing at the board’s regularly scheduled meeting on
Feb. 16.
District ponders changes for board, elections
By REBECCA NEIPP,
News Review Staff Writer
News Review Staff Writer
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
