The Board discussed reapportionment at last night’s meeting.
Andy McNeil, a reporter for the Observer, attended the meeting. Here’s a portion of Andy’s story:
Fort Cherry board at odds over election plan
10/18/2011 3:31 AM
Fort Cherry School Board director Jamie White informed the board of directors at Monday's meeting that he is among the residents who intend to file a petition Tuesday in Washington County Court seeking to approve a new plan for electing school directors.
Fort Cherry School Board director Jamie White informed the board of directors at Monday's meeting that he is among the residents who intend to file a petition Tuesday in Washington County Court seeking to approve a new plan for electing school directors.
Under the current plan, the regions of McDonald, Mt. Pleasant and Robinson/Midway are each represented by three directors. White said he feels the current system fails to foster equal representation, pointing out that in the 2010 Census, as well as the 1990 Census, there were 1.6 times more residents in the Mt. Pleasant election district than the McDonald district.
"The plan that we will propose abolishes the existing three voting regions and replaces them with an at-large election of all nine board members," White said.
"A very small minority gets to choose three seats," he later added, providing figures showing that Mt. Pleasant makes up 41.3 percent of the population in comparison to 25.3 percent and 33.4 percent from McDonald and Robinson/Midway, respectively.
"If those people who are occupying the seats are occupying those seats for the correct reason, then what's the difference?" asked director Robert Rutledge.
According to White, the court's review will take into account not only census data, but also other determining factors, such as the number of per capita taxpayers, registered voters and the total amount of local taxes paid.
"Reality is that total taxes paid have nothing to do with how the voting distribution will be broken up; however, it does clearly amplify why there is some concern about this," said White, who mentioned previously raising the issue before the board in 2004, 2007 and May 2011.
Superintendent Robert Dinnen said he spoke with Larry Spahr, director of the Washington County Registration and Election Office, who agreed to meet with the committee overseeing the election plan to discuss the district options after the general elections in November. He said Spahr explained that changing the district's election plan is a complex issue and that it has nothing to do with the amount of taxes paid or the number of registered voters, but has more to do with the Census.
Director Raymond Miller supported the idea of furthering the discussion with Spahr present, stating that a committee meeting would be the appropriate course of action.
When asked prior to the board entering an executive session, White said the residents still planned to file the petition today despite the committee's plans to meet with Spahr.
Andy McNeil
Observer-Reporter
October 18, 2011
Of course, there’s more to the story . . .
At the meeting last night, Jamie White distributed this memo to the Board and the audience:
In May 2011, the Board passed a motion to appoint a committee for the purpose of reapportionment:
Policy:
Action for the Board President to appoint a committee for reapportionment.
Mr. Duran made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. White that the Board approve the Board President to appoint a committee for reapportionment. Mr. White read a statement apologizing if he had offended anyone. Mr. Lauff made
comments; Mr. B. Miller responded.
Motion passed unanimously.
FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 23, 2011
That very night, Brant Miller appointed himself and board members Jamie White, Larry Heinrendt, and Mike Duran to the reapportionment committee.
According to Jamie White there has been no movement since the formation of the committee - no meetings, no phone calls.
At the meeting last night, Dinnen said that he “spoke” to Larry Spahr a number of times.
Dinnen went on to emphatically state (several times) during the course of the discussion that Spahr is “very busy and inundated with many things this time of the year”. He went on to say, “Nothing can change in two weeks.” (Election Day is November 8.)
Dinnen also said that he didn't know a lot about elections but he seemed to know enough about contractual issues. (???) He continued that this is a complex issue and has nothing to do with what Jamie brought up, but with the census.
Dinnen said that Spahr is willing to come to talk to the board.
Board member Ray Miller added that the committee would meet with Spahr. (Note that Miller said the committee, not the board as a whole, and certainly not in front of the public.)
So, in the past three months, instead of the Reapportionment Committee of the board meeting to discuss the issue, Dinnen took it upon himself to “speak” to Spahr.
Jamie White and some of his fellow board members may be surprised to learn that Dinnen and Sroka met with Spahr back on July 20, 2011.
(The following mileage/expense reimbursement form was obtained through a citizen’s RTK request.)
Of course, Dinnen and Sroka had a meal while in Washington, at taxpayers’ expense.
(The following receipt was obtained through a citizen’s RTK request.)
Dinnen and Sroka met with Spahr on July 20th - yet it appears that the board (with the possible exception of two of the McDonald board reps) is hearing for the first time that there was any discussion of the reapportionment with Washington County.
Three months after the fact, and Dinnen is just now reporting his conversation to the Board and the public. And, there was still no mention of an actual meeting – only that Dinnen “spoke” to Spahr.
For three months, Dinnen and Sroka have been sitting on this information, until it’s too close to the elections for the Reapportionment Committee to meet with Spahr.
Would Dinnen have admitted that he “spoke” to Spahr if Jamie White hadn’t forced his hand by passing out the memo?
The Board is facing the very important issue of reapportionment – but the bigger issue at hand may be the lack of disclosure from the Superintendent and Business Manager.
