 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Current Issue Links
In an apparent effort to increase efficiency and reduce expenses, the Sierra Sands Unified School District
Board of Education moved forward, with a vote of 5-2, to start the process aimed at reducing the number of
board seats from seven to five.
Board of Education moved forward, with a vote of 5-2, to start the process aimed at reducing the number of
board seats from seven to five.
Grant Herndon, legal council to the district, summarized in a special meeting Monday night the issue that
has been before the board for the last several weeks.
For years various members of the board have expressed an interest in reducing their ranks in an effort to
decrease staff time and resources on board matters. The Kern County Grand Jury and various union groups
have also called for a board reduction in order to save the money spent on boardmember stipends and
healthcare benefits.
Herndon pointed out that out of 47 boards in the county, only two districts — including Sierra Sands —
have seven-member boards. In the case of Sierra Sands, that was the result of concessions made during
unification of multiple boards in 1974.
A preliminary step toward this end was taken when the board recently moved forward with a plan to
eliminate the special district that secured one seat for a Rand trustee and six for Ridgecrest-area trustees.
Census figures demonstrated that the Rand population represented just more than 1 percent of the
public, rather than the 14.3 percent needed to evenly balance the districts. By eliminating special trustee
districts, candidates are no longer limited by their area of residence (beyond having to live within the borders
of the district).
Although the first step was unanimously agreed upon, the board has been divided on support for the
reduction. President Tim Johnson, Bill Farris, Kurt Rockwell, Mike Scott and Tom Pearl have expressed
support from the start.
Judy Dietrichson has stated mixed feelings, and fears it would reduce the representation from the Rand
community. She has requested placing the item on a ballot to determine community support, then proceeding
according to the will of the voters.
Amy Covert also expressed concern over losing the diversity of representation and has asked that the
board achieve cost savings another way.
Although public comment on the matter has been limited, so far everyone who has addressed the issue
has supported a reduction.
Those supporters include Robert Rockwell and David Burdick, each of whom has previously sat on the
board.
“It always made sense to me to move in the direction you are considering now,” said Rockwell. “Without
going through all the reasons to do it, which are considerable, and the reasons not to, which are not
considerable, I think it is a good move. I commend you and I encourage you to move as quickly as you can to
achieve these goals.”
The plan outlined by Herndon would eliminate one seat each from the 2012 and 2014 elections, a plan
that would allow boardmembers to serve out their terms and spread the eliminations across all trustees.
Staff introduced a resolution which stated the intent to move toward reduction with the application for a
waiver, which would allow the process to move forward without putting the action before the public. Herndon
noted that the county committee that considers the waiver requires an extensive process of public notification
and recording of position (supportive, opposing or neutral) from stakeholders including bargaining units and
school-site councils.
If that waiver is rejected, the issue will automatically go to an election.
Dietrichson recommended an alternate plan that would put the action for board reduction before the public
on the 2012 ballot, then eliminate two (out of the four) board seats up for reelection in 2014. Herndon said he
needed to research the issue before giving an opinion of the plan’s viability.
Farris requested that the wording on the resolution be changed so that there were no references to the
November 2012 election. He said that with that revision, the board could continue to move forward with the
action without jeopardizing the resolution if for some reason the waiver is not approved.
Pearl, who made the original motion to approve the resolution, said he did not want to change his motion.
He and other board members said that the issue needed to move forward.
Burdick agreed, speaking out from the public, telling the board to “Stop fooling around and get on with it.”
Herndon acknowledged that the revision to the resolution could easily be made after the fact if necessary.
The final vote was approved with by a majority, with only Dietrichson and Covert opposing.
The issue is expected to also appear at the board’s next regular meeting, scheduled for Thursday, Feb.
16, at 7 p.m. in Ridgecrest City Council Chambers. The public is invited to attend.
has been before the board for the last several weeks.
For years various members of the board have expressed an interest in reducing their ranks in an effort to
decrease staff time and resources on board matters. The Kern County Grand Jury and various union groups
have also called for a board reduction in order to save the money spent on boardmember stipends and
healthcare benefits.
Herndon pointed out that out of 47 boards in the county, only two districts — including Sierra Sands —
have seven-member boards. In the case of Sierra Sands, that was the result of concessions made during
unification of multiple boards in 1974.
A preliminary step toward this end was taken when the board recently moved forward with a plan to
eliminate the special district that secured one seat for a Rand trustee and six for Ridgecrest-area trustees.
Census figures demonstrated that the Rand population represented just more than 1 percent of the
public, rather than the 14.3 percent needed to evenly balance the districts. By eliminating special trustee
districts, candidates are no longer limited by their area of residence (beyond having to live within the borders
of the district).
Although the first step was unanimously agreed upon, the board has been divided on support for the
reduction. President Tim Johnson, Bill Farris, Kurt Rockwell, Mike Scott and Tom Pearl have expressed
support from the start.
Judy Dietrichson has stated mixed feelings, and fears it would reduce the representation from the Rand
community. She has requested placing the item on a ballot to determine community support, then proceeding
according to the will of the voters.
Amy Covert also expressed concern over losing the diversity of representation and has asked that the
board achieve cost savings another way.
Although public comment on the matter has been limited, so far everyone who has addressed the issue
has supported a reduction.
Those supporters include Robert Rockwell and David Burdick, each of whom has previously sat on the
board.
“It always made sense to me to move in the direction you are considering now,” said Rockwell. “Without
going through all the reasons to do it, which are considerable, and the reasons not to, which are not
considerable, I think it is a good move. I commend you and I encourage you to move as quickly as you can to
achieve these goals.”
The plan outlined by Herndon would eliminate one seat each from the 2012 and 2014 elections, a plan
that would allow boardmembers to serve out their terms and spread the eliminations across all trustees.
Staff introduced a resolution which stated the intent to move toward reduction with the application for a
waiver, which would allow the process to move forward without putting the action before the public. Herndon
noted that the county committee that considers the waiver requires an extensive process of public notification
and recording of position (supportive, opposing or neutral) from stakeholders including bargaining units and
school-site councils.
If that waiver is rejected, the issue will automatically go to an election.
Dietrichson recommended an alternate plan that would put the action for board reduction before the public
on the 2012 ballot, then eliminate two (out of the four) board seats up for reelection in 2014. Herndon said he
needed to research the issue before giving an opinion of the plan’s viability.
Farris requested that the wording on the resolution be changed so that there were no references to the
November 2012 election. He said that with that revision, the board could continue to move forward with the
action without jeopardizing the resolution if for some reason the waiver is not approved.
Pearl, who made the original motion to approve the resolution, said he did not want to change his motion.
He and other board members said that the issue needed to move forward.
Burdick agreed, speaking out from the public, telling the board to “Stop fooling around and get on with it.”
Herndon acknowledged that the revision to the resolution could easily be made after the fact if necessary.
The final vote was approved with by a majority, with only Dietrichson and Covert opposing.
The issue is expected to also appear at the board’s next regular meeting, scheduled for Thursday, Feb.
16, at 7 p.m. in Ridgecrest City Council Chambers. The public is invited to attend.
Board approves reduction
By REBECCA NEIPP,
News Review Staff Writer
News Review Staff Writer
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
