Potential board configurations for unified unions Produced in collaboration with Chris Leopold DISCLAIMER This presentation does not constitute legal advice Appropriateness of represented models will vary significantly from study committee to study committee The laws and legal requirements con ID: 644457
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Proportional Representation" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Proportional Representation
Potential board configurations for unified unionsProduced in collaboration with Chris LeopoldSlide2
DISCLAIMER
This presentation does not constitute legal advice. Appropriateness of represented models will vary significantly from study committee to study committee. The laws and legal requirements concerning these matters are complex and specific issues MUST be addressed and analyzed on a case-by-case basis by a study committee in direct consultation with its retained consultant and legal counsel.Slide3
Equal Protection Clause
Articles of Agreement must address representation on the board of school directors for the district – 16 VSA 706b(9)No more than 18 members on the board
Each district must have at least one representative
Continuing obligationSlide4
Three
Basic ModelsProportional Representation
district-by-district:
determining school directors based upon population of the members districts as a percentage of the whole.
Weighted
Voting: the
vote of each member town’s director(s) is assigned a weight that corresponds to the member town’s proportional relationship to the total population of the union district and the size of the school board.
At-Large
Voting:
designating the number of school directors for each member district and voting for directors by all member town districts
* Some hybrid models within parameters set by Title 16, Chapter 11.Slide5
Proportional Representation: District by District
R
epresentation
on the union district’s board of school directors will be closely proportional to the fraction that its population bears to the aggregate population
The
most generally accepted tool in these population calculations is the U.S. Census.
Three principles:
M
aximum
number of school directors is 18.
E
ach
member/forming school district is entitled to have at least one school director.
V
ariations
in proportionality of 10% or more is generally problematic. Slide6
Proportional Representation: Hypothetical
Five Towns by Population
Town
Population
%
Argyle
1,230
10.6
Big Creek
1,410
12.1
Carleton
2,490
21.4Drifter2,65022.8Elton3,80532.8Total11,585
Population per Board Member
# Board
Members
Population/Board Member
7
1655
9
1287
11
1053Slide7
Ex. Nine Member Board
Town
Population
%
% of 1287
# of Board
Members
% of Board
Argyle
1,230
10.6
.95
1
11.1Big Creek1,41012.11.09111.1Carleton2,49021.41.932
22.2Drifter2,650
22.8
2.05
2
22.2
Elton
3,805
32.8
2.95
3
33.3
Total
11,585
99.7
9
99.9Slide8
Ex. Eleven Member Board
Town
Populaton
%
Ratio to 1053
# of Board Members
% of Board
Argyle
1,230
10.6
1.16
1
9.0
Big Creek1,41012.11.3319.0Carleton2,49021.42.36218.1
Drifter2,650
22.8
2.51
3
27.2
Elton
3,805
32.8
3.61
4
36.3
Total
11,585
99.7
11
99.6Slide9
Ex. Thirteen Member Board
Town
Population
%
Ratio to 891
# Board Members
% of Board
Argyle
1,230
10.6
1.38
1
7.6
Big Creek1,41012.11.58215.3Carleton2,49021.42.79323.0
Drifter2,650
22.8
2.97
3
23.0
Elton
3,805
32.8
4.27
4
30.7
Total
11,585
99.7
13
99.6Slide10
Weighted Voting
16 VSA 707(c)Satisfies proportionality not through the number of directors but through the numeric weight of each director’s vote.
School directors holding a majority of the total number of weighted votes shall constitute a quorum.
Can provide for an equal number of school directors among the forming school districtsSlide11
Weighted voting: Hypothetical
Town
Population
%
# Directors
Weighed Vote
Argyle
1,230
10.6
1
10.6
Big
Creek
1,41012.1112.1Carleton2,49021.4121.4Drifter2,650
22.81
22.8
Elton
3,805
32.8
1
32.8
Total
11,585
5
100
** Elton and either Drifter or Carleton are sufficient to constitute a forum. If only the two directors are present
then
the Elton director will cast the deciding vote.Slide12
Weighted Voting: Unequal Directors
Town
Population
%
Board Members
Weighed
Vote per District
Weighted Vote per Director
Argyle
1,230
9.3
1
9.3
9.3Big Creek1,41010.6110.610.6Carleton2,49018.8218.8
9.4Drifter
2,650
20.0
2
20.0
10.0
Elton
3,805
28.2
4
28.2
7.05Fayette
575
4.3
14.34.3Gulf4253.213.23.2Harbor6254.714.74.7Total13,21099.1
**
Does my vote matter?Slide13
At-Large Voting
16 VSA 706e(c)Little statutory guidance.
Sample models
exists in current operation and one federal court decision in Vermont.
Multiple uses for
at-large
votingSlide14
District by District Proportionality
Each district is assigned a proportional number of school directors.
Directors are nominated at the
member-town
level
Actual election of directors occurs at the union level with all
member towns
voting on the election of all directors
Town
Pop.
%
#Bd. Mem.
%
Argyle1,23010.6111.1Big Creek1,41012.1111.1Carleton2,490
21.4222.2
Drifter
2,650
22.8
2
22.2
Elton
3,805
32.8
3
33.3
Total
11,585
9Slide15
At-Large Voting:
Barnes v. Mt. Anthony, UHSD
At-Large voting lessens the impact of great variance in school district population and the allocation of directors.
Not okay as a direct proportional representation model. Okay if all elected at-large.
“Since the entire union is the source of the authority of each and all directors, they are called upon to serve all the people in the union district, not merely the citizenry who reside in the district in which they were nominated.”
Barnes
District
Pop.
%
#Bd. Mem
bers
%
People/Board
Mem.Bennington13,60269.0436.43,400Shaftsbury1,97410.02
18.2987
Pownal
2,441
12.4
2
18.2
1,221
N
orth
Bennington
1,421
7.22
18.2
711
Woodford2861.519.1286Total19,724100.011100.01,793 (avg)Slide16
Proportional Hybrid
Town
Population
%
#
Bd. Members
Argyle
1,230
10.6
1
Big Creek
1,410
12.1
1Carleton2,49021.42Drifter2,65022.82Elton3,80532.8
3At-large
-
-
2
Total
11,585
11
* Can create a sense of district identity or lessen the impact of rounding numbers up or down over many districts.Slide17
CAUTION!!!
Section 706e(c), which authorizes at-large voting, states that petitions “for a person who is a resident of a school district that is proposed as
necessary
to the establishment of the union.”
At-Large voting is not applicable for a district that is identified as advisable.
At-large voting does not appear to be an option available in the formation of any proposed union in which the articles of agreement identify any district as advisable.Slide18
QUESTIONS?