tEN - Heppner Gazette-Times, Heppner, Oregon
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
- To The Citizens of Morrow County -
On the evening o f Friday, February 21, 2003 the M orrow County School Board conducted a "Special M eeting" w ith the published
purpose o f establishing their position on Senate Bill 372. T h is m eeting w as called on W ednesday, February 19, 2003 and public
notice w as given on Thursday, February 20.
Senate Bill 372 w as introduced in the O regon Legislature on Tuesday, February 11 at the request o f the lo n e S elf Determ ination
Com m ittee as a part o f the process o f rem oving the lo n e Com m unity from the M orrow County School D istrict and form ing a
separate lo n e School District. T h e full text o f Senate Bill 372 is available on the O regon Legislative w ebsite at ww w .leg.state.or.us/
billsset.htm . H ow ever it is im portant to realize that this bill is an am endm ent to statutes that are already in existence and is
therefore incom plete if read separately from those statutes. ORS 330.003 - 330.400 are also available on the O regon Legislative
w ebsite at w w w .leg.state.or.us/ors. Please read them both carefully in determ ining w hat you believe the relevant facts to be.
Th e M orrow County School Board raised concerns w ith the lo n e S elf D eterm ination Com m ittee about som e item s in this bill on
W ednesday, February 19. W e attem pted to discuss their concerns w ith individual Board M em bers prior to the '"Special M eeting"
and in w riting w ith the Board as a w hole. Instead o f being allow ed to explain the areas o f the bill that the School Board had
expressed concern with, the lo n e S elf D eterm ination Com m ittee and the m em bers o f the public w ho attended this m eeting w ere
disregarded.
W e provided w ritten copies o f our position on those specific item s to the M orrow County S uperintendent at 8:30 a.m. on the
day o f the m eeting so that Board M em bers could have them in advance o f the m eeting and take them into consideration w hen
m aking their determ ination. T h e Board M em bers did not receive them until after the m eeting had started and did not take the
tim e to read them or allow us to read them aloud.
There w as no public com m ent allow ed. T h e lo n e S elf D eterm ination Com m ittee w as only allow ed to answ er questions directed
at us and w e w ere not even allow ed to do that fully and w ithout interruption. As a result, the audience w as denied the
opportunity to hear a com plete explanation o f Senate Bill 372.
Th e Board then voted on a pre-w ritten resolution that states their unconditional opposition to Senate Bill 372. T h ey did so
w ithout full know ledge or understanding o f the facts regarding this bill. And they did so know ing that they had not considered all
o f the facts, nor had they taken the tim e to allow their legal counsel to fully determ ine the facts.
The lo n e S elf Determ ination Com m ittee did o ffer to ask the Senate Education Com m ittee to delay acting on the bill in order to
give the M orrow County School Board a chance to consider all o f the facts and m ake a w ell inform ed determ ination o f their
position on the bill. T h is o ffer w as rejected. W e also offered to discuss any changes to the language o f the bill that they m ight
propose, but that offer w as discarded as well. T h ey chose to make their decision w ithout regard to any alternative point o f view
and w ith full know ledge that they did not have all o f the relevant facts.
Printed below are the lo n e S elf D eterm ination Com m ittee's responses to the three m ajor concerns raised by the M orrow County
School Board in regard to Senate Bill 372. W e urge you, as a resident o f the M orrow County School D istrict to read them and
consider them carefully before you reach an opinion on Senate Bill 372.
What About Lexington?
The M orrow County School Board
indicated that, by using the terminology
"The lone School District shall consist
of the attendance area for the lone
School" we are attempting to take the
entire Lexington area into the lo n e
School District.
Attendance areas for each school
in the district are designated under
Morrow County School District policy.
We have attempted to, as closely as we
could determine, follow the designated
attendance area for the lone Schools
when we drafted the legal description
included in our petition. This does not
include Lexington or Pine City which are,
under MCSD policy, "nondesignated"
attendance areas.
Senate Bill 372 still requires us to file
a petition with the ESD. That petition
has already been filed with the ESD and
a copy is available at the Morrow County
Clerk's O ffice. The M orrow County
Assessor has used the legal description
in the petition to draw the boundaries
onto a map.
No, we are not attempting to include
Lexington, nor could we do so if we
wanted to.
Our position on the students in the
Lexington and Pine City areas is just
what we have previously stated it to
be. We believe it would be unfair to
students from this area, who attend
Heppner Schools, to be included in the
lone School District, so they are not.
However, we feel that it would be
equally unfair to the students from this
area, who attend lone Schools, to deny
them this choice. We hope that the
Morrow County School District will treat
these students and their families fairly.
Why no remonstrance?
What about the division
o f Assets and Liabilities?
The M orrow County School Board
in d ic a te d th a t w e are try in g to
c irc u m v e n t th e lo ca l p ro c e s s by
removing the remonstrance provision of
the current statute.
Oregon Statute also requires that a
school d istrict provide education in
grades K-12. The D istrict Boundary
Board (ESD in our case) is required to
consolidate any district not offering K-
12 into an adjoining district.
M orrow County School Board has
never voted not to consolidate any, or
all, o f lo n e 's schools into Heppner.
Sim ply that they are not "pursuing
consolidation at this time."
M o rrow C ou n ty S ch o ol B oard is
currently w orking on revising their
policies, including the policy requiring
a six month process in order to close a
school.
Current statutes allow up to 120 days
for the ESD to act on our petition and a
re m o n stra n ce to be file d . I f a
remonstrance is filed then the future o f
th e lo n e S ch o o ls w o u ld rem ain
u n ce rta in u n til a fte r an e le c tio n ,
probably in September. Under these
circum stances, even if we won the
election, the boundary change would
not take effect until May 31, 2004. We
would remain in the Morrow County
S ch o o l D is tric t, w ith o u r s c h o o ls
managed by them, for another full year.
W e have a lre a d y s e cu re d th e
signatures of over 10% of the registered
voters o f Morrow County and nearly
80% o f the registered voters in the area
that would becom e the lo n e School
District.
G iven th is fa ct and the w ay the
com m unity o f lo n e was treated on
Friday night, we do not feel that it is
unreasonable to eliminate the possibility
that the Morrow County School Board
could move forward with consolidation
as part o f an effort to stop lone from
seceding.
The M orrow County School Board
indicated that we are using Senate Bill
372 in order to dictate how the assets
and liabilities of the district would be
divided between the two new districts.
Senate Bill 372 requires that the
petition contain a proposal for the
distribution o f all real and personal
p ro p erty and a proposal fo r the
distribution o f all assets and liabilities
o f the Morrow County School District.
T h e bill also ou tlin es a m ethod o f
dividing the assets and liabilities that
the proposal in the petition shall use.
It does not state that the assets and
liabilities shall be divided using this
method, simply that the proposal in
the petition shall use this method.
ORS 330.123 (which is not amended
by this bill) requires that the district
boards of each district (Morrow County
School District and lone School District)
immediately after the boundary change
make an equitable division of the then
existing assets and liabilities between
the districts. It also allows for a Board
of Arbitration to determine an equitable
division if the two districts are unable
to reach agreement within 20 days of
the boundary change.
No, we are not attempting to dictate
the terms under which the assets and
liabilities of the district would be divided,
nor can we legally do so. The lone Self
Determination Committee is simply a
non-elected committee o f citizens, we
are not the appropriate elected body to
conduct such negotiations.
A final division of assets and liabilities.
would have to be negotiated between
the tw o school boards. W e sim ply
included a proposed structure under
which such a division could take place.
SELF-DETERMINATION IS ABOUT IONE'S PARENTS AND COMMUNITY
DECIDING WHAT IS BEST FOR IONE'S CHILDREN
1
f