The Wake County school board will formally discuss the potentially contentious issue of redistricting at today's meeting.
In a last-minute addition to the agenda, school board member Kevin Hill says he's asking the board to discuss a resolution on providing a "transparent" process for drawing up the new boundaries to be used for the nine school board districts. Hill said he asked for it to be discussed because the school system needs to begin work on redistricting soon.
One question could be who is tasked with drawing up the new boundaries that would be voted on by the board.
Hill said he'd likely ask that Tharrington Smith, the board's longtime legal firm, be tasked with the job. Tharrington Smith worked with attorney Michael Crowell, who has since retired, in drawing up the current boundaries in 2001.
School board member John Tedesco said he's probably be comfortable using Tharrington Smith or Kieran Shanahan's law firm to draw up the districts. Today's agenda includes allowing the board to pay Shanahan up to another $25,000 in legal fees.
Tedesco said that attorney Thomas Farr will be too busy helping draw up the boundaries for the General Assembly to work on Wake's school board districts.
Another question is whether the board will do what it did in 2001 and draw up boundaries that don't force current members to be in the same district.
There will be a lot of scrutiny with the new boundaries considering the current climate in Wake. The new boundaries, barring a potential lawsuit and rejection by the U.S. Justice Department, would be used this fall when five of the nine board seats are on the ballot.
The filing period is supposed to start in July. Candidates will want to know which districts they'll be in before announcing.
Supporters of the old diversity policy, such as Cash Michaels in this recent blog post, think the GOP school board majority will draw up districts that will most hurt Democrats.
Comments
Wake charter, private
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 18:00 — AngelaWWake charter, private schools see increased applications
http://www.wral.com/news/education/wake_county_schools/story/9040240/
Clever...
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:45 — Bob_SconceHill wants to avoid having the majority draw up lines to their political advantage and is using this "transparancy" ploy to do that.
In my view, the function of the attorneys is to set down the boundaries of what is allowable under law and also to inform them about how the board has previously operated. But, drawing the lines is the board's job, not their attorneys. Redistricting, after all, is intentionally a political process.
Silly me
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 13:47 — Dove314Here I thought redistricting was reapportionment to insure equal sized voting districts based on the population given geographic changes in population over time, not just a political opportunity. I thought when politics got involved it became gerrymandering.
Oh...
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 15:54 — Bob_SconceIt's not 'just' a political opportunity -- of course its purpose is to reapportion voting districts to their correct sizes. But, gerrymandering is an intentional part of the political process.
There are many ways that district lines could be "fairly" drawn, but none of those ways are required by law. Heck, it's possible to plug the numbers into a computer and arrive at the most equally balanced districts, but the law doesn't require that. Instead, it gives elected leaders the task of redrawing the districts with full knowledge that they will use the redrawing for political advantage.
It's not a fully unbounded ability -- there are some limits, such as the restrictions of the voting rights act, the requirement that districts be contiguous and (of course) the requirement of balance. But, as long as politicans stay within those boundaries, they can do whatever they want.
As to Virgina's claim about the board being non-partisan: "Non-partisan" is a name the law uses to refer to elections where the political parties of candidates are not listed. It's as silly to claim that this label implies anything about how the board should conduct itself as it is to claim that every member of the "red team" in a middle school flag-football game has to be a communist. If the GA wanted the board members to be apolitical, it could have written it directly into the law.
You are right...
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 16:53 — bpuli9999Whatever the GA meant it to be - the BoE elections are no longer non-partisan. It is the exact opposite now - with the two political parties totally involved and spending huge amounts of money. Maybe it is time the political affiliations of the candidates were put on the ballot.
So...
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 17:17 — Bob_SconceI'm of the opinion that questions like "what the GA meant it to be" are useless -- there are a few hundred people in the GA, and each of them had different reasons for voting for, or against, any bill. Trying to attribute a collective motive or intention to that gaggle is impossible. The only clear intention of what the GA wanted is what it actually passed.
Most of the politicians walk
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 17:06 — DrActualFactualMost of the politicians walk a verbal tightrope while they are running--they say what people want to hear, they say vague, ambiguous things. The last two campaign cycles of BOE and CC candidates featured several candidates from both sides saying that the current economic climate would be a bad time to raise taxes (neither Dems or Rep would necessarily raise taxes for education). Some said..."I will ensure that education is "properly" funded", now that could be read by one person to mean (I'll cut out waste and frivolous spending) and another could think (they are willing to further fund underfunded schools). I think many voters took different messages away from the same people because FEW voters pin the candidates down on issues. I asked one of the candidates for CC what he would do tax-wise (Dem) for the schools and he handed me a sheet of what he'd accomplished over the past 10 years--what good is that? The current climate is completely different. I'm hoping the next election cycle will result in voters really getting into the meat of the issues at the candidate forums.
Agree -- and it definitely
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 14:23 — virginiadareAgree -- and it definitely shouldn't be partisan in elections for what are supposed to be non-partisan officials.
County Wide Districts
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:25 — mnordbergIt is time for county wide districts.
Assuming the Wake delegation
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:30 — KeungHui (author)Assuming the Wake delegation could agree to it, the General Assembly would need to approve it within the next five months to happen in time for this fall.