PVUSD Board approves reapportionment giving
super majority to Watsonville area trustees

Missed deadline requires County Committee on School District Organization (County Office of Education Board of Governors) to make final decision. Public hearing scheduled for March 21

By Peter Nichols

On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, the four-member Watsonville majority of the Pajaro Valley Unified School District voted to enhance their position of power by choosing the only reapportionment option that guaranteed five votes for them and only two votes for Aptos area trustees.

It has been speculated that the recommended reapportionment may be welcomed by Aptos since the absence of any decision making ability on the part of that community may cause the State Department of Education and the County Office of Education to permit the district to accelerate its plans to reorganize. That would fullfill a long held desire for the Aptos community to form its own district. Of the two Aptos area trustees, one, Sharon Gray objected strongly to the adopted recommendation while the other, Evelyn Volpa was absent. Neither voted on the proposal.

Option 4, which concentrated all Aptos area precincts into two trustee areas — Area 1 represented by Volpa and Area 7 represented by Gray — was approved on a 4-1-2 vote. Sandra Nichols, whose recomendations fell on deaf ears, argued that Area 6 should remain as a "bridge" between the two primary communities of interest, Watsonville and Aptos. The isolation of Aptos that results from Option 4, she said, would further divide an already divided district. Hers was the lone "no" vote. Gray argued against Option 4, and favored Option 3,, but had been advised that the district could be subject to litigation since it had not completed the process prior to the March 1 deadline. She refused to cast a vote. Volpa had previously scheduled a vacation trip after March 1 and so was absent.
Compare Options 3 and 4

District Committee creates three options

Board members at the Feb. 13 meeting chose not to vote on any options, but rather to table the issue and request additional options. Though the County Office Education warned that California Ed.Code 5019.5 requires school districts to reapportion trustee areas prior to March 1. At the urging of a community member and two trustees, Superintendent John Casey and Associate Superintendent Terry McHenry created Option 4 to arrange the seven trustee areas to conform to the district's three zones — north, central and south, though the board never voted to make zone alignment a criteria of reapportionment. The zone concept was approved in 1999 on a 4-3 vote with the three Aptos area trustees opposing it.

Superintendent takes over

Subsequently the superintendent chose — over the objections of the board's president and vice-president at a Feb. 19 agenda committee meeting — to postpone any decision until after the district's reapportionment advisory committee could meet on March 4, after the deadline. That would allow time for the committee to recommend an option the superintendent had created. That option could then be presented to the board on March 13, which it was.

It is ironic that the board voted to have community members create the reapportionment options yet the option which passed was developed by Casey, who resides in Modesto, and McHenry, who makes his home in Carmel. The board never rescinded its action to allow the administration to submit proposals. Several PVUSD teachers were highly critical of the superintendent interjecting himself into the fracas. In published accounts, he claimed to have been "neutral."

Reapportionment now in COE hands

The County Office of Education Board who now has jurisdiction over the district's reapportionment will meet March 21, and reassemble at approximately 3:00 p.m. as the County Committee on School District Organization for a public hearing on the district's reapportionment. The County Committee will consider the recommendation approved by the district's board on March 13.

A close examination of the various options, reveals that Under Option 1, Watsonville area trustees were guaranteed three seats, while Aptos was guaranteed none but with the outside chance of claiming four. Under Options 2, 3 and 5, Watsonville area trustees were guaranteed four seats, with Aptos guaranteed two with the possibility of a third (Area 6). Only under Option 4 could the Watsonville area trustees guaranteed a super majority of five votes for themselves with Aptos having only two votes.

Proposal removes Hispanics and "Packs" Zone with Whites

Further evaluation of the demographic data for Option 4 shows that though trustee areas 1 and 7 needed to gain a combined 4,384 persons — a 17.1 percent increase — "packing" the two areas with north zone precincts and removing some Hispanics actually resulted in a reduction in the percentage of Hispanics for the north zone from 10.89 to 10.55, and the percentage of total minorities from 16.93 to 16.45.

Option 3, which was favored by two trustees, increased combined Hispanic population in the two Aptos areas, to 11.70 percent and combined total minorities to 17.72 percent.

It was the removal of two Aptos precincts from trustee area 6 and their transfer to area 1 which enabled the administration to "pack" the north zone with non-minorities and thus lower the percentage of minority population. Area 6, under Option 4, would slightly increase Hispanic population to 62.21 percent and total minorities to 68.84 percent. Option 3, by contrast, increases Hispanics and total minorities in Area 6 to 63.47 and 70.27 respectively. LULAC, a Latino lobby group had sought 70 percent Hispanic strength in Area 6, but settled on supporting Option 4 though Option 3 offered greater Hispanic and minority strength.

Peter Nichols, representing Area 6 on the reapportionment advisory committee, wrote a letter to the County Committee to be included in the County Office of Education board packet. Maps and demographic data for Options 2 and 3 accompanied the letter. In the letter, Nichols explains how the district board's process had changed from "open and fair to not open and not fair." He also suggested that since only four board members were expected to vote for the administration option, a report was created by the consultant, Griffin, to add support for the decision of the four deciding members. The letter identifies factual errors in the report which claims unanimous support of the committee members for Option 4 as the "preferred option." The representative for Area 6, Peter Nichols, who attended every meeting of the committee continually argued against that option. The letter also identifies and a misleading "WHEREAS" in the board's resolution No. 01-02-23 regarding who "developed" the recommended option.resolution #01-02-23.