I wondered how long before the "omniscient" legislators would start appointing our "representatives". This is typical of the arrogant, we are smarter than the electorate attitude of the legislature.

I wish to thank Hughes for this bill. While odd on the face it serves to keep the split somewhat fair as a previous election result remains. Had they all lost their positions on the board it was a valid argument for unconstitutionality.

Thousands of voters were not allowed to vote on the JSD split. Now thousands of us are barred from voting on who will represent us on these two new school boards. It is inherently wrong to disenfranchise citizens who pay for, and have an interest in good government processes and representation.

Great another way to keep dragging down progression. I am sick of these board members and the current JSD administration. I want new ideas for our new system, this will not happen unless we clean house. How does the law constantly be bent for these people. Lets fight this people light up the phone lines.

Come on people the law is constantly bent for these people because you don't voice your disapproval. get on the phone to your elected idiots and demand a special session of the legislature. tell them if you don't get it they will never see another term in office. They will react if the demand is great enough. I guarantee it.

Another way to collect the high saleries they gave themselves and the health insurance none of the employees were entitled to. As soon as they are comfortable again in the 8 year roles they will award themselves with even higher saleries. So much with starting with a clean slate'
Same old board members, same with them not listening to what we want. They shoud do the right thing resign and let us move on. We do not want you!!!!

This amendment was a wonderful trojan horse for the entrenched establishment to kill the potential for real educational progress and reform.

Automatically placing existing board members on the new board, instead of making them stand for a new election, only serves to perpetuate the reasons the east side wanted to split in the first place. Just look at Mrs. Wallace's complete betrayal and sell-out of east side interests. No wonder she doesn't want to be on the new board. How can she possibly be objective?

And, unfortunately, the west side is now shackled with the same visionless board that brought us here. It is largely Mr. Christensen's leadership that has created the current financial difficulties. To force him on the west side for another 4 years is cruel and unusual punishment.

Navyvet: Appointing a representative to fulfill the remainder of an elected officials term is very much the status quo. If you will remember, when Sen Mayne passed away, his wife was appointed to fulfill his remaining term. This is only fair so that the district gets their share of representation. You must have missed that point....

Anonymous: your argument for unconstituionality is misguided. The only guarentee an elected official has upon their election is compensation for the entirety of their term. While their position exists, they also have a right to exercise their authority within it. If the position is eliminated via legislative (or other) action, they only have a right to said compensation, not to weilding authority in an entity that ceases to exist.

Bonnie: Every single voter in within the new district had the ability to vote - NO ONE was barred as you state.
The methods of "splitting" a district are codified in statute and in THOSE cases the entire district votes. However, THIS process is quite different. In no "split" scenario would Granite students be directly affected as they are in this new district. Also, no one has represenation on TWO boards simultaneously, just one.

It was the west side board members (and dear Ms. Wallace) that pushed this amendment through at the last minute. Fortunately for the East side, most of the board members that will remain are progressive thinkers (with one expception - let's hope her resignation keeps).
The west side does have the advantage of a majority of their board being up for election. Maybe that will win the day and get them what they need/want.

I think this is a huge set back to our progression. Just when I saw our education system getting better we are stuck with a visionless board AGAIN. I am sure they are feeling good they get to dictate once more.

To: "For clarification" -

Your clarifications are off target regarding the comments made by the originators' remarks. I suggest you re-read what was written and respond to what was actually said, or simply make your own comments without misinterpreting others' comments.

I appreciate your intent to be helpful, but if you intend to set the record straight, please address what was actually said. In these instances, you have not done so.

I stand by what I said, as I'm sure the other two contributors do. I have no idea who or what your last three sentences are supposed to set straight.
I think you've got it wrong there, also.

To JSD board members. You see that we are upset and do not want to see you for the next 8 years. You are visionless and do not listen. I am tired of being told why my kid cannot have this or that. Please do the right thing like the Wallace women did and walk away. We do not need or want you, why do you thing 100 plus people filed to be elected. Give up your self importance and resign PLEASE!!!!!! Do the right thing as we head into new districts.

Whiners and winers if they (the present board memebers) were so bad why did you not fight them in the previous elections, their people voted them in. I agree that it should not be set up this way. Extend for two years at the max then stagger the elections.

It's fine to stand by what you said, I only hoped a little education would enlighten you. Often knowledge changes perspective. My comments are right on point.

Appointing people to elected posistions when the original person resigns is common practice.

The is NOTHING unconstitutional about the new district creation law according to a federal Judge, despite Anonymous' claim otherwise. I don't know "anonymous" but doubt he/she knows more about the constitution than the judge.

YOUR claim that thousands were not allowed to vote is simply untrue. WHO? (the west side?). I'm sorry you don't understand the law or the reasoning behind it. Simply because many persist in calling this a JSD "split" does not make it so. In a "split" you take the current boundaries and break them up. How in a "split" could families living ouside JSD boundaries (in Granite) become involved? However by creating a district along CITY boundaries, not school district boundaries (they are differnt by the way), this is happening.

Sorry space is limited here for a full discourse. If you want the details, read the filings in the Herriman vs. Swensen lawsuit. A little knowledge might help your perspective.

The comment above sounds like its from a JSD board member. I hope you read the comments about resigning.

"For Clarification" and the response "Dear Bonnie"

No one is being appointed to fulfill the position of a board member other than Ms. Wallace if and when she actually resigns.

What about all the other board members that were just given additional time to serve? Should they be held accountable to the people they represent.

To: Torjan Horse please call your Senator and Representative. We need to let Mr. Christensen know how we feel by having the oppportunity to elect someone else in June.