Image provided by: Morrow County Museum; Heppner, OR
About Heppner gazette-times. (Heppner, Or.) 1925-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 26, 2003)
Heppner Gazette-Times, Heppner, Oregon Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - THREI: Tempers flare as Ione-Morrow Co. school district split turns acrimonious that legislation. How much spoon feeding do w e h av e to d o ,” retorted Joe McElligott. “I think we will be down there (in Salem) and w e will pass it,” said Jerry R ietm ann. “ 1 think they (the school board) d id n ’t bother to a c q u ire th e fa c ts a n d th e ir concerns— m any o f them are unfounded. 1 think they d o n ’t have the facts at hand.” “We’ll see where it goes from here,” M cElligott told the G azette-T im es follow ing the m eeting. “ I w as hoping they w o u ld h a v e g o tte n m o re information from their attorney in interpreting the bill. N o th in g ’s going to change about dividing the assets. They need to get their attorney with our attorney. I think they had ample time to get a copy o f the law. It was in the EO. All they had to do was to get on the Internet and bring it up. They didn’t even have a current copy o f the petition.” But, he added, “ We can still n e g o tia te and hopefully still be friends.” “1 think this bill has been m ade out to be a P andora’s box and it’s not,” said Lisa Rietmann, o f lone, after the m eeting. “They (the board) acted without bothering to get all the information.” Weikel told the G-T that the first indication the board received about the bill was Feb. 14 when they received a phone c a ll fro m a lo b b y is t in th e legislature inquiring as to w hy M C SD w as not opposed to the bill. “ In our naivete, we thought it (the bill) w ould be w ithin e x is tin g O re g o n law ,” sa id Weikel, who added that she was especially concerned that the bill provided for no remonstrance o f the citizens o f the county. “ We have to do everything w e can to get this bill killed,” she concluded. After legislators heard o f opposition to the bill, the bill was tie d up in c o m m itte e , w ith legislators waiting to hear from the parties involved p rio r to taking any action. (See adjoining: summary o f the bill in the legislature; the petition before the U m atilla- M orrow ESD for a boundary change; letter to Dr. Crippen and th e b o a rd fro m th e S e l f D e te r m in a tio n C o m m itte e distributed to the board at the Friday night meeting.) Senate Bill 372 Sponsored by Senators B row n, C lam o , and N elson; Senators Atkinson, Beyer, Carter, C ourtney, D eck ert, F e rrio li, Fisher, George, Gordly, Harper, M e s s e rle , M e tsg e r, M o rse , S h ie ld s , B. S ta rr, C . S tarr, W a lk e r, and W in te rs ; R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s A n d e rs o n , Backlund, Beyer, Brown, Butler, C lo s e , D a lto , F a rr, F lo re s , Garrard, Jenson, Kafoury, Kitts, K n o p p , K r ie g e r , K r o p f , Krummel, Kruse, Mabrey, Scott, G Sm ith, P. Sm ith, T. Sm ith, Westlund and Zauner Summary: The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors o f the m easure and is not a part o f th e b o d y th e r e o f su b je c t to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s b rief statement o f the essential features o f the measure as introduced. Directs district boundary b o a rd to a p p ro v e b o u n d a ry change to divide Morrow County School D istrict No. 1 into two districts. Specifies conditions for division o f district. Sunsets on July 1,2006. D e c lare s em erg en cy , effective on passage. A Bill For An Act: R e la tin g to s c h o o l d is tr ic ts ; a n d d e c la rin g an emergency. Be It E nacted by the People o f the State o f Oregon: S E C T IO N 1. { + Section 2 o f this 2003 A ct is added to and m ade a part o f O R S 330.092 to 330.101. + } S E C T IO N 2. { + (1 ) N o tw ith s ta n d in g an y o th e r p ro v is io n o f law , a d is tric t boundary board shall approve a request or petition to divide the M orrow County School District No. 1 into tw o districts if: (a) T he re q u e st or petition m eets the requirem ents o f th is s e c tio n a n d O R S 330.095; and (b) The request was filed by the board o f the district or the petition contained the signatures o f five percent or 500 electors, whichever is less, o f the district. (2) The two districts shall b e M o rro w C o u n ty S c h o o l D istrict N o. 1 and a d istrict d e s ig n a te d as lo n e S c h o o l District. The lone School District shall consist o f the attendance area for lone School as it exists on the effective date o f this 2003 A ct. E ach d istrict shall offer e d u c a tio n a l p r o g r a m s in kindergarten through grade 12. (3 ) T h e re q u e st or petition subm itted to the district boundary board shall contain a proposal for distribution o f all real and personal school property o f the former district that is located in the p roposed lone School D is tric t to th e lo n e S ch o o l District. The request or petition shall also contain a proposal for d istribution o f all assets and liabilities o f the form er district based on the expected weighted a v e ra g e d a ily m e m b e rs h ip (A D M w ) o f the districts. ( 4 ) A r e m o n s tr a n c e petition or election m ay not be allow ed on any request for a boundary change submitted to the district boundary board under this section. (5) The district boundary board shall appoint by order five residents o f the lo n e School D istrict as the initial board o f directors o f the district. Two o f the m em bers shall be appointed to serve until June 30 following the election o f their successors at the next district election. The first e le c tio n f o r d is tr ic t b o a rd m em bers shall be held not less than 90 days from the date o f the order. The rem aining m em bers shall be appointed to serve until June 30 following the election o f th e ir su c c e s s o rs at th e nex t succeeding district election. (6) The employees o f the form er school district who have been em ployed at lone School m ay elect to transfer to the new lone School D istrict upon the creation o f the districts. A school district em ployee o f the form er district m ay not be deprived o f seniority or accum ulated sick leave solely because the duties o f th e e m p lo y e e h a v e b e e n assum ed o r acquired by a new school district. + } S E C T IO N 3. { + Section 2 o f this 2003 A ct is repealed on July 1,2006. + } SE C T IO N 4. { + This 2003 Act being necessary for the im m ediate preservation o f the public peace, health and safety, an em ergency is d eclared to exist, and this 2003 A ct takes effect on its passage. + } Before The (Jmatilla- Morrow Education Service District Petition For Boundary Change In Morrow County School District 1 P u r s u a n t to O R S 3 3 0 .0 9 5 , th e sig n ers o f this petition respectfully petition the B o a rd o f D ir e c to r s o f th e U m a tilla -M o rro w E ducation Service District (the “Board”), in its capacity as school boundary board for M orrow County, to e n te r an o rd e r ch an g in g the boundaries o f M orrow County School District 1 (“District l ”)so as to withdraw and remove from D istrict 1 all o f the territory identified as Exhibit A to this petition (the ‘Territory”). T he U m atilla-M orrow Education Service District is the only education service district with jurisdiction o f this requested boundary change. District 1 is the only affected school district. T h e p u r p o s e o f th e proposed boundary change is to permit the formation o f a new and separate K -12 school district in the Territory, to be designated as lone School District, with such num ber designation as m ay be assigned. A copy o f this petition has been filed w ith the County Clerk o f Morrow County, and all signatures have been made after that filing. P u r s u a n t to O R S 332.118, the following (not more th a n th r e e ) p e rs o n s a re d e s ig n a te d as th e c h ie f petitioners, all o f whom reside in and are registered electors in District 1 and the Territory. /s/ Jerry L. Rietm ann, lone /s/Joseph P. McElligott, lone /s/A nneC . Morter, lone Petitioners request that the Umatilla-Morrow Education Service District schedule a public hearing and give notice to the public, in the manner provided by law, o f the filing o f this petition and the tim e and place o f the public session o f the Board at which petition will be considered. I f no rem onstrance petition is filed requiring an election, or if the 2 0 0 3 le g is la tiv e a s s e m b ly determ ines that rem onstrance and election provisions should not apply, petitioners request that the Board order that the change shall becom e effective as provided in O R S 330.103. Petitioners request that the order o f the Board appoint five residents o f the lone School D istrict as the initial board o f directors o f that district. Two o f the m em bers shall be appointed to serve until June 30 following the election o f their successors at the next district election not less than 90 days from the date o f the order. The rem aining m em bers shall be appointed to serve until June 30 following theelection o f th e ir su c c e sso rs at the next succeeding district election. P e titio n e r s f u r th e r request that an equitable division o f assets and liabilities be made betw een District 1 and the new d istric t as p ro v id ed in O R S 330.123. A ny real or personal property o f the present school w ithin the T erritory shall be transferred to the new district. All accounts and other assets and liabilities shall be divided between D is tric t 1 a n d lo n e S ch o o l D is tr ic t b a s e d u p o n th e ir resp ectiv e w eighted average daily m em berships (A D M w ). The new district shall retain the obligation to accept students from the Lexington school area and the O lex attendance area. T h e e m p lo y e e s o f D istrict 1 w ho are em ployed at the lone School shall have the right to elect whether to become e m p lo y e e s o f lo n e S c h o o l D istrict. N o em ployee shall be d e p r iv e d o f s e n io r ity o r accum ulated sick leave solely b e c a u s e th e d u tie s o f th e employee have been assumed or acquired by the new district. E a c h s ig n e r o f th is petition certifies that he or she is a resident and registered elector in M o rro w C o u n ty S c h o o l D istric t 1, M orrow C ounty, Oregon. Dated as o f this 3 day o f February, 2003, the date o f filing o f an original counterpart with the M orrow County Clerk. /s/Jerry L. Rietmann /s/ Joseph P. McElligott /s/A n n e C . M orter ChiefPetitioners Letter to MCSB members and Dr. Jack Crippen, MCSD Superintendent February 20,2003 To: M o rro w C o u n ty School Board M embers Dr. J a c k C r ip p e n , M orrow County School District Superintendent continued from page one District, has been filed with the From : T he lone S e lf M orrow County C lerk’s Office Determination C ommittee (as required by state law before Dr. Crippen and School a petition can be circulated). We Board M embers; have also provided the legal Pursuant to a m eeting d e s c r ip tio n to th e M o rro w betw een Dr. C rippen and Joe County A ssesso r’s Office and M cElligott, several questions they have draw n it onto a map. have been raised regarding the This is available on the public process that we have initiated to record to anyone w ho chooses form a separate lone School to verify what we are telling you D istrict. We w ill attem p t to here. This petition was approved answ er each o f them to the best by th e C l e r k ’s O f f ic e fo r o f our abilities and understanding circulation and if we w ished to and have referred some to either change any part o f it, w e would ou r legal c o u n sel, Mr. John have to start completely over on Osbum, or to our Administrative the circulation o f the petition. Consultant, Mr. A1 Meunier. Senate Bill 372 still requires that Lexington Students: w e file a p e titio n w ith the T h e f ir s t o f th e s e Boundary Board for the Morrow questions is in regards to an C o u n ty S c h o o l D is tr ic t. a s s u m p tio n th a t w e m a d e T herefore, we could not use regarding the students who attend Senate Bill 372 to change the lone Schools from the Lexington boundaries o f the proposed lone attendance area.. W hat w e have School District anyway. said in regards to these students Transportation Costs: is that they will not be included A question was brought w ithin our district boundaries up re g a rd in g th e e stim a te d because we don’t think it would tra n s p o rta tio n c o sts for the be fair to not allow other children proposed lone School District. w ho currently attend H eppner The question is that the estimate Schools from the sam e area to that w as used in our projected continue to have that choice. We budget included continuing to be w ould like to expect that the able to use the M orrow County M orrow County School District School D istrict bus bam , and w ould feel the sam e way about why w ould we assum e that we the students who currently attend w ould be allow ed to use that lone Schools and allow them to facility? It is true that the estimate m ake the choice to continue to that we received did m ake that attend lone Schools, even though assumption. However, they also they w ould have to be released indicated that if that w as not the from M orrow County School case, our total costs w ould be District to do so. in creased by ap p ro x im ately We did include these $10,000. O ur non-reim bursed students in our projected budget 30% w o u ld be o n ly a b o u t rev en u e. H ow ever, this w as $3,000. We felt that this was not more o f a matter o f simplicity for a material dVnount in the overall us th an an a ssu m p tio n th a t scheme o f things and that it might M orrow County School District be in the best interest o f both w ould release these children. It districts if we could work out an is not really clear w hat lo n e ’s arrangem ent that w ould allow A D M w count w ould be as a M idCo to use M C SD ’s bus bam separate school district and we for lone’s buses as well. had to have a num ber to use, so F o u n d a tio n m o n e y w e used our current one as a -. included in the budget: r e a s o n a b le s ta r tin g p o i n t ) ' ’ i It has been suggested However, we do believe that w e ■ that there is m oney projected to could create a budget w ithout be re c e iv e d fro m th e lo n e those 20 or so students in it, and Education Foundation included in w e are currently w orking on the p ro jected budget for the doing so. We have referred the proposed lone School District. adjustm ent o f the budget to our The only revenue projection Administrative Consultants Mr. included in the budget that was A1 Meunier and Mr. Terry Carty. drafted by Mr. A1 M eunier and We do not believe that Mr. Terry Carty was the money w e h a v e to h a v e th o s e 20 received through the State School students to have a financially Funding Equalization Formula viable school district. W hat we b a s e d o n 2 7 7 A D M w and do believe is that those students $4,500/A D M w and the state’s and th eir fam ilies should be Transportation Grant at 70% o f treated fairly by the M orrow the p ro je c te d tra n sp o rta tio n C o u n ty S chool D istrict and expenses. In an attem pt to be allow ed to continue to attend conservative we did not include lone Schools, if they so choose. a n y o th e r r e v e n u e in th is D istrict B oundaries - projected budget. Lexington Area: S p e c ia l E d u c a tio n A nother issue that has Services: arisen in regards to the Lexington We are re fe rrin g the attendance area is whether or not, question regarding whether or not under Senate Bill 372, we are w e h a v e p r o v id e d fo r an attem pting to take all o f the adequate level o f service to our Lexington area into the lone special education student to Mr. School District. Senate Bill 372 M e u n ie r a n d M r. C a rty . states that “ The lone School However, we do believe that the D istric t shall c o n sist o f the level o f staffing that w e have budgeted allow s for adequate attendance area for the lone School as it exists on the effective special education staff as well as all o th e r n e c e ssa ry stu d e n t date o f this 2003 act” . It is our understanding that the M orrow services. C ounty School Board has, by A d d itio n a l A th le tic policy, designated attendance F u n d in g F ro m R e c r e a tio n areas for each school within the District: school district. We have used a Our understanding is that m ap provided by the M orrow the a rra n g e m e n t o f funding County School District to attempt a th le tic a c tiv itie s fro m the to follow the boundaries o f the recreation district w ould not lone School Attendance Area, as change. It is a co u n ty -w id e d e s ig n a te d by th e M o rro w district and we assume that lone County School District. It is our would receive its current share o f understanding that the Lexington the funding from this district plus and Pine City areas are specified a proportionate yearly increase. by the M orrow County School We did not include any revenue D is tr ic t as n o n -d e s ig n a te d from th em , o r e x p e n se s for attendance areas. Therefore, we athletic activities in our projected fail to understand why specifying budget. This should not have an that the proposed lone School impact on the remaining Morrow D istrict w ould consist o f the County School District. a tte n d a n c e area o f the lone D ivision o f A ssets and Schools, as it exists today, would Liabilities: possibly indicate that we are We have referred this attem pting to include any o f the question to our legal counsel. Lexington area in the proposed H o w e v e r, th e fo llo w in g lone School District. information may help to address Our petition, with a legal some o f the concerns in this area. description o f the boundaries o f Senate Bill 372 states th e p r o p o s e d lo n e S c h o o l that “T he request or petition submitted to the district boundary board shall contain a proposal for d is trib u tio n o f all real and personal school property o f the form er school district that is located in the proposed lone S c h o o l D istric t to the lone School District. The request or p etitio n shall also contain a proposal for distribution o f all assets and liabilities o f the former district based on the expected w e ig h te d a v e ra g e d a ily m em bership (A D M w ) o f the districts.” ORS 330.123 provides that “ W hen changes in school district boundaries are made by the detachm ent o f territory or annexation o f less than an entire school district to another, the district boards o f the districts affected by each change shall im m ediately after the change make an equitable division o f the then existing assets and liabilities between the districts affected by such change and provide the m anner o f consum m ating the d iv is io n .” T h is sta tu te also p r o v id e s fo r a B o a rd o f A rb itra tio n to d eterm in e an equitable division if the two districts are unable to do so within 20 days o f the boundary change taking effect. We have not circum vented this process or dictated the m ethod that will be u sed to d e te rm in e w h at an equitable division is sim ply by requiring ourselves to provide a proposal for the structure under which such a division should take p la c e in o u r p e titio n . T h e la n g u a g e in th e p e titio n is e sse n tia lly the sam e as the language in Senate Bill 372. Furtherm ore, we d o n ’t understand why the proposal that w e ta k e th e b u ild in g s and facilities that are inside o f the proposed boundaries o f the lone S c h o o l D is tr ic t a n d o u r respective share o f the other (non-Facility specific) assets o f the district based on A D M w should be such an inflammatory one. We believe that the assets o f the M orrow County School District belong to the taxpayers o f th e d is tr ic t a n d w e, as taxpayers, should be able to take our share o f those assets with us into the new district. However, we w ant to be clear w ith the M orrow County School Board, that the language o f Senate Bill 372 does not state that assets shall be divided this way. It simply states that the petitioners will p ro v id e a p ro p o s a l fo r the division o f assets based on this structure and we have done so. Timing and how it affects MCSD: We have requested that our legal counsel address the issue. Bonded Indebtedness: O ur legal counsel has ad dressed th is issue w ith us p r e v io u s ly a n d it is o u r understanding that the bond levy applies to every property that was within the M orrow County School District at the time o f the bond issue. We cannot, nor do w e h a v e a n y in te n tio n o f attem pting to change this by creating a separate lone School District. Property within the new lo n e S ch o o l D is tric t w ould rem ain subject to the property tax a sse ssm e n t to repay the bonded indebtedness just as the voters intended at the tim e the bond issue passed. Heppner Garden Club to hold meeting T he H ep p n e r G arden Club will be holding their March m eeting, M arch 3, at 7 p.m. at St. P at’s Senior Center. Daisy Collins and Mary Goheen will host the evening. The program will be on birdhouses, w i t h s p e a k e r s W i l b u r and Dorothy Jackson. The Jacksons will a lso sh o w som e o f the birdhouses they have built and collected.
