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.