Reapportionment Committee Struggles

Chris Coray, Reporter

Rich Civic Times

RANDOLPH, Utah. February 4, 2015, the committee appointed to recommend reapportionment of the Rich County School District met again at the Rich County offices.  Nine of the 14 members attended.  In a meeting that lasted an hour and a half the committee struggled to make substantive progress.  Utah Code, section 20A-14-201(b), states the following:  (b) The county and municipal legislative bodies shall divide the school district so that the local school board districts are substantially equal in population and are as contiguous and compact as practicable.    The school board for a county this size is set by state statute at 5 members.  2010 Census data is available and must be the source of determining population. 

Some members of the committee are not currently satisfied with dividing the county school district into 5 distinct local districts of substantially equal population and have asked Commissioner Cox to find out if the state would approve a division of 4 distinct districts of equal population and then use the entire county as a 5^th district.  The 4 districts would each have approximately 565 members while the county-wide district would have population 2,264.  Such a division would not meet the “equal population” writing in the Utah Code and Commissioner Cox said that in his discussions about this proposal with the Lt. Governor’s office and the office of the Attorney General he has not been able to get an answer.  He said that those offices have not said yes and not said no.  Mr. Cox said that a division of this type does not exist in any school district in Utah.

The committee spent time working on a 5 equal district population model but reached no conclusions or recommendations.  The next meeting of the committee was set for March 25.  The need for reapportionment was formally presented to the county commission on March 6, 2014, so this task, required by law, will go more than a year uncompleted.   Mr. Cox said that he hoped it would be done by July 1.

Following the meeting described above this reporter sent an email to the Lt. Governor's office asking about the notion of a county wide at-large district as desired by some of the ad hoc committee.  A representative of the Lt. Governor's office replied Feb. 6, and wrote, "Commissioner Cox has asked that question and we have sent him a letter indicating that we are not aware of anything in the code that provides for at-large local school board districts.  If the county wanted to follow that sort of scheme the county would need to find the justification for that and be prepared to defend it".