How could we say the district was split fairly when it was even a fair election in that one side didn't even get to vote mmmm the new ways of democracy = no thanks

The DesNews and KSL asked the wrong question in the poll they conducted. The question asked dealt with people's perceptions of fairness relating to the east side of the JSD being allowed to split the district in two.

A "split" of the JSD is not occurring. The five municipalities of Midvale, Sandy, Cottonwood Heights, Draper, and Alta have elected to "create" a new school district. This is a crucial distinction. The DesNews opinion refers to this distinction in its opinion, but minimizes it by saying it doesn't accurately portray the JSD situation. This point shouldn't be minimized as it was a pivotal determinant in the ruling against Herriman in the lawsuit it filed.

Has the DesNews and/or KSL conducted a poll, or done an investigative report to determine why the residents of these 5 cities were so dissatisfied that they voted to create a new school district? Have you spoken with the individual school PTA and School Community Council leaders in these cities to find out why so many of them voted to "create" a new district? These people passionately care about schools. This represents a major part of the JSD situation that the press hasn't looked at.

The whole state should be one big school district for funding purposes.

The op ed stated "A Dan Jones & Associates poll, conducted for the Deseret News/KSL-TV, found that 72 percent of Utahns believe it was unfair to allow only the east side of the Jordan School District to vote on whether to split the district in two."

So what? In a world of individual rights it only matters what those individuals thought on the east side. We have too many busybodies trying to control other people.

I thought we were a country founded on the individual's god-given rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not enslavement to the Jordan district westsiders.

To Laurels: If, as you say, those five cities voted to create a new district, not a split in the existing district, then they should not be entitled to any funds or facilities owned by the existing district. If they expect to take anything from the Jordan District, then they have, in fact, split the district, without any choice given to half of the district. The editorial comparison to part of a city breaking away is appropriate. It is not comparable to an unincorporated area deciding to incorporate.

Laurels,

Perhaps I've misunderstood this whole issue. According to your post, did those cities that you cited vote to create a new school district, in addition to the existing Jordan School District? Does that mean, that they would still be fully obligated to pay their share of Jordan School District's financial obligations, at least until all of those obligations that were part of Jordan School District prior to the formation of the "new" district, were satisfied?

I don't see the issue that way. I see it as a way for those cities to escape their duty to pay for their obligations - kind of like getting a new credit card and thinking that you have no responsibility to pay off the balance on the old credit card.

This reminds me of our War of Independence with one side splitting away unilaterally. Only in this case wealthy Britain in the east would be trying to cut America free and America in the west would be sending armies to Britain saying, "PAY US! PAY US!"

Mc couldn't be more incorrect! Are there not taxpayers in the 5 cities? Have they not paid taxes just like everyone else?
Furthermore the comparison to a portion of a city breaking away is not correct for one simple reason: This is not a "SPLIT" (no matter how many times you call it that), it is a creation. As to assets, when a new city is created, infrastructure that belonged to the county is tranfered to the new municipality for upkeep - all the roads etc.
@Mike Richards: there was no illusion on the east side that the obligation to pay bonds would remain with all current JSD taxpayers until that debt is retired. "Refusing" to see it that way is akin to hiding your head in the sand...

What many seems to misunderstand (and why the legislature got it right) is that the new law allows for community based schools. Let me cite a simple example:

Suppose the cities of Sandy (JSD), Cottonwood Heights (mostly JSD), Holladay (Granite), and East Millcreek (mostly Granite) had decided that THEY would have liked to create a school district (rather that the 5 that did)? The new law allows that to happen. The old "splitting" laws (that are still on the books) would not have allowed such a creation. Under this scenario virtually all the "split" opponents' reasoning breaks down!

West Jordan voted on a new school district last November as well, and it involved a portion of Granite School District as well. [Again a creation not allowed with simply "splitting" a district].

Should local communities be banned/prohibited from choosing what's best for themselves? Just as the remainder of SL County doesn't get a vote when a new city is created, nor should the rest of any/all other districts get a vote when a new district is created. The processes are very different and call for seperate procedures.

The comment that any vote should happen AFTER transition teams have already divied things up is ludicrous!!! As it is, the west side transition team has taken a position of delay, hinder, and obstruct - and completely ignored their lawful duty to actually get something done!
How much less willing would a group be to work anything else without ANY motiviatino to proceeed. At least in this case, the process for electing school boards was included and now some real work can be done.

The legislature created a process that promotes animosity between the two sides. The west is resentful that only the east was allowed to vote. Now that the east got its vote, they are complaining that the west won't cooperate in dividing assets.

The Deseret News is right when it says the process should have allowed both sides to vote. That way they would have brokered a division proposal that was beneficial to both sides. Fairness is not a consideration in the current process.

We should actually have many more splits -- not like this, but even smaller. Even the two districts left after this split (yeah, it's a split!) are too big. These behemoth districts are not in the best interests of educating kids, and we should have many more, smaller districts that are run by people in their own communities. It'll cost more, but it would be worth it.

Dear Legislature: PLEASE change the process before this train wreck comes to Alpine. As much as I would like to see smaller school districts, this process is NOT the way to do it. What a mess!

To Mr. Richards:

There will actually be two new districts: The New East Side District and the Remaining District.

Forming a new school district does not release the East side residents from paying 57% of the JSD's bonded indebtedness at the time of the vote. In fact, the New East Side School District will pay $202 million of the $354 million of total bonded indebtedness outstanding at the time of the vote over the next 10-15 years. Since the vast majority of those funds have been put into West side buildings, the East side is paying a lot of money for assets they will not receive benefit from. To use your analogy of a divorce, it represents a hefty alimony payment considering they only have 43% of the students.

To Mc: The idea of "self-determination" is pertinent to the formation of new municipalities and it is also a key factor in the legislation governing the formation of a new school district. Newly formed municipalities gain ownership of assets previously owned by the county. Newly formed school districts gain ownership of community assets located in their boundaries.

Laurels (9:26),

Thank you for clearing that up. I had misunderstood the process, thinking that the east side would have minimal obligations for the existing bonds.

This is the way that I now understand the basic process:

The "modified" west side district would vote and pay for future growth. The "new" east side district would vote and pay for its new district. Both sides would pay off pre-existing bonds together.

The benefits and obligations would be more realistically aligned with the people using the schools. That seems fair to me (even though, as a citizen of South Jordan, my taxes will most likely increase to fund the growth of the west side).

I am a graduate and former employee of Jordan School District and, more than anything else, I support this split because Jordan is poorly run, has way too much administrative overhead, and mistreats its teachers.
As always, the press looks for the contention, so they focused on East side vs. West side rather than address these issues.

Regarding the financial issues:
It seems to me the financial arguments should really take the form of discussing how education should be funded - statewide or by city.

Regarding who should be allowed to vote:
Should England have had to ratify the Declaration of Independence? Should all of Canada vote when Quebec wants to leave? Saying that the West side should vote too is a bit ridiculous.

Regarding the problems in transition:
Ever since the vote Jordan School District has tried through undemocratic means to slow it down. They have filed multiple lawsuits (zoning regulations in Draper, don't count the vote etc.), tried to float huge bonds (which they would be able to stick the east side with) etc.

Given this track record, it is pretty hard to believe that the East side negotiators are the ones obstructing the process.

Tyler, you really should get your facts straight.

First, Jordan has one of the lowest administrative costs and fewer adminstrators per student than anywhere in the entire country.

Second, your England analogy is just odd. That issue was about taxation without representation. Not only does the east have represntation, they have always had the majority representation on the school board (currently 4 east, 3 west).

Third, Jordan District has done nothing to slow down the division. They have filed NO lawsuits (the Draper suit has nothing to do with the division, but with property rights). The bonds were sold at the request of east-side officials.

I just don't understand why they didn't just increase the number of JSD School Board members to better reflect the growing population of the district. That way there would have been more representation and I would like to have thought that with more representation there is greater and (ideally) better input to the issues facing JSD. But no. The powers that be on the eastside WANTED their own little kingdom...and THAT is the bottom line. Well, it will cost more..and to those who think smaller districts are more responsive....we can all find "studies" that will show the benefits of larger vs. smaller (and vice versa)....but the study used by Bennett and Associates was slanted to push the "smaller" school district concept on the voters. Wait until your tax bill comes through in 2 years.....and you will be screaming for the old district. Have any of you ever heard of "economies of scale"? Keep the old JSD.

To the men and women Utah Legislature: Your efforts to create useful processes for citizens to use in resolving school district disputes have failed. The subsequent impasse between the invested parties is a causal result of your poor planning, lack of foresight, and decidedly meagre capacity to grasp the principles of effective government. The people of the Jordan School District used the process you created, but this process was so flawed that it will now cost additional time and money to resolve the issue.

Your job was to pass an equitable law that did not result in arbitration. You failed because you were not smart (or perhaps honest) enough.

Andy, JSD is in the mid-range of admin cost per student for the State - not at the bottom. Of note, the other large districts in the state (with similar numbers to the new JSD and the new district) have admin costs per student in the SAME range. Therefore, claiming that a new district will have significantly higher/lower/the same admin costs per student isn't supported by the facts. Likely they will stay about the same.
JSD has done nothing DIRECTLY to slow down the process other than sit in on/with the west side transition team. Peggy Jo Kennet is on the that team and also on the School Board.... She is also one (of three) of the west side transition team members/politicians at fault for the obstructionist attitude that has hindered the process.
The bonds were sold (at the east side's suggestion, yes) because by NOT selling them, the west side would suffer as the bonds would have become non-issuable without a new election (strictly in the remaining school district - not a happy thought).

EdM - the number of boards members is set by statue and limited for good reason. The larger the board, the more difficult to get things accomplished. Many of the problems with JSD are a result of bureaucracy and you want to add MORE? Wrong direction. The current JSD board members represent district larger in size than our Utah State Senators! Without the new district, that only gets worse.
@Hatuletoh - This effort has by no means failed. It has shown that obstructionists can have some effect on the process. You seem to be of the misguided assumption that if you whine enough, it will all go away. THAT attitude is the greatest disservice to kids and education in the valley.

Most buildings on the East side are older and in need of repair (Many don't even meet code). Time and time again money requested to remedy these problems gets turned down or postponed. I understand there is growth on the west side and they have needed more schools. However, why is it that the JSD could afford state of the art facilities with up to date technology in virtually every classroom for these new schools, while students in these older buildings go to school everyday with safety risks? Not to mention the lack of technology. A school on the east side of JSD is lucky if they have 6 classrooms wired for internet, projectors etc. The east JSD has been patient for years, but at some point enough is enough and we have to stand up for our own children!

It only matters what the east siders think? Hmmm were you playing hooky when the teacher taught fairness?

The only really fair way to handle all this is to make funding of schools a state wide thing. That way there will not be the haves and the have nots.

The poorer districts need an advantage if anything, they don't need to be left with poorer or less facilities.

Andy Facts: You need to get your facts straight. Mrs. Kennett sits on the Remaining School District Transition Team as an alternate. She does not have a vote regarding motions that are made and voted on by the TT. Because members of the RSDTT will not agree to give the new district $75,000,000 to $300,000,000, they are now labeled "politicians." "Responsible citizens" would be a more accurate label.

To Hello! There are three people on the transition team who are indeed politicians and that is all they care about. At one of the meetings, one of the committee members (who is also a WJ city councilwoman) even remarked that she did not support the proposal before her because she "couldn't sell it politically." In contrast, the new district asset transition team is made up of professionals (CPAs, business executives, attorneys, former public school administrators) whose sole focus has been the task at hand -- dividing the assets and liabilities in a "fair and equitable manner." When the west side transition team does -- on the rare occasion -- open up one of its meetings to the public, it is not to discuss any plan dealing with assets and liabilites but rather, it is with the intent of advancing more emotional rhetoric.

The core of the "new district" formation is the frustration the east side has with the allocation of the bond funds. Blame can be spread in many directions JSD, board members and developers not required to pay "user fees" for new school needs. However we are past the blame stage, the new district is inevitable and much needed. Over 85% of the bond money is spent on the west side while the east side pays nearly 60% of the obligation. As a Community Council member, I've seen many east side schools in need of A/C, radon gas remedies, computer technology needs and updated school books, not to mention whole new buildings.

Anytime two parties share assets, finances, emotions and decide to separate and move in different directions, it's not going to go easy at first. But over the long run, I'm confident we'll look back at this as a positive and productive decision.

@EdM Lastly, I don't mind paying a little more knowing my money is going to better the schools which need it most.

As a parent, I have been appalled at the decisions made by Jordan School District concerning funding issues for school construction, updating, school safety issues, and school health issues such as not having air conditioning in schools as students and teaches suffer unconscionable conditions in classrooms...all on the East side of the District. We have schools lacking sprinklers, and having no seismic protection. $29,000,000 was just appropriated by the board for a West side land purchase rather than addressing pressing safety issues at Union and Albion Middle Schools, and constructing a much needed middle school in Draper. These improvements were voted for by the people in the last bond election,but were eliminated in favor of total spending on the West side. We, on the East side feel like we are being held hostage. Had the expenditures been fair to students on both sides of the district, the split would not be happening. The East side board member voting in favor of the West side is not representing her constutuents. Evidently she has her own agenda. We want to have our tax dollars benefit our own children for a change.

And to our Legislature, many thanks! It's time to move forward!