Trustee Areas for the Election of
West Contra Costa Unified School District Trustees
The Richmond Unified School District (now known as the West Contra Costa Unified School District) was created in 1965 in response to state pressures for the unification of school districts. ³The schools from five separate cities and six unincorporated territories were brought together in a single administrative unit. But that administrative change brought with it little social or political cohesion. Instead, unification created an artificial political organization which was superimposed upon a heterogeneous area whose constituency perceived few, if any, common bonds; a political unit devised to meet the goals of economy and efficiency, but with little regard for the history and diversity of the people who would live under its jurisdiction; a school district that was headed for trouble from the moment of its birth.² [1]
We are providing this report to discuss the characteristics of both at-large and trustee area election systems and to provide a sample trustee area scenario. We have attempted to present an objective analysis, and the characteristics listed as positive and negative were described as such by political scientists and other experts on election systems.
Review of the literature resulted in a variety of interesting points about the advantages and disadvantages of electing school boards under the two possible systems. Of particular importance are the following:
In at-large election systems, school board members can live anywhere in the school district and voters select candidates to represent the whole district. In district election systems (sometimes called "ward-based elections"), school board members are elected to represent a subarea of the school district. In the California public school system, there are various possible district election systems.
Figures 1 and 2 are summarizations of the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of at-large and district election systems.
Evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each system suggest that it might be desirable to replace an at-large system with district elections if:
An existing at-large method might be preferred if:
The fact that both at-large and district election systems have disadvantages makes it difficult to choose between them. In U.S. history, there have been periods when one system was widely used for local elections, followed by reform movements to switch to the other system because of real or perceived disadvantages or abuses of the system currently in place. For example, the Progressive movement of the early twentieth century included widespread replacement of ward-based systems with at-large systems. It was believed that at-large elections would feature more qualified candidates, less likely to be corrupt, than ward based ones (Viterelli, 2005). At-large systems were challenged as part of the civil rights movement of the last third of the twentieth century, and district election systems replaced at-large ones in many cases, especially in areas with ethnic and racial minorities who were underrepresented on city councils, county supervisor boards, and district boards.
Figure 1: Theoretical Positive and Negative Characteristics
of At-Large Election Systems
(not ranked) (Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc.)
|
At-large |
Positive Characteristics 1. Trustees represent the entire school district, not just a subarea. Trustees take the good of the whole jurisdiction into account, not just their subarea. 2. There is a big candidate pool. 3. Each voter has an equal influence in elections. 4. Districting and redistricting problems and expenses are avoided. 5. There is no gerrymandering and no possibility of charges of gerrymandering. |
Negative Characteristics 1. Certain groups with a bare majority in the school district may win most of the trustee seats, and certain geographical areas and communities of interest may never be represented on the Board. 2. Some Board members may never get to know parts of their constituencies and some of the schools. 3. It can be more expensive to campaign at-large than from single-member trustee areas. 4. There may be fewer opportunities for members of (numerical) minority groups to be elected, including racial and ethnic minorities and poorer people. If so, there is less chance that numerical minorities' views will be represented on the Board and the Board may be less sensitive to minority interests. |
Figure 2: Theoretical Positive and Negative Characteristics
of District Election Systems
(not ranked) (Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc.)
|
District Election |
Positive Characteristics 1. Trustees represent subareas, including ones that might not otherwise have elected officials. Therefore, the various geographical subareas are always represented. 2. There may be a greater opportunity for various ethnic/ racial/ socioeconomic groups to be represented, and for Voting Rights Act requirements to be met. 3. It can be less expensive to campaign from single-member trustee areas than at-large. 4. Voters may feel more connected to the political system because their geographical area has its own representative. Trustees may pay more attention to their constituents. Members of the public know to whom they should express concerns or suggest changes. |
Negative Characteristics 1. Possible "Balkanization" of interests, with trustees representing only the community that elects them. Trustees may be less inclined to consider what is good for the whole district. They may tend to have a narrower agenda, focusing only on the constituencies that elected them and their needs, which can preclude a broader policy perspective. 2. Each voter's influence and interest tends to be confined to the single representative from his/her district (Weaver, 1984). 3. Politics in relatively small districts may be relatively obscure, making it easier for self-serving cliques to escape scrutiny (Weaver, 1984, citing Zimmerman. 1972). 4. Representing different constituencies may reduce board cohesiveness and the ability of members to work productively. 5. It may be difficult to find candidates for election in some trustee areas, particularly if the population base is small (as in seven-trustee systems) and registered voter shares (and therefore numbers of potential candidates) are small. More Board members may be appointed rather than elected (Gobalet, 2003; Gobalet and Lapkoff, 1992). 6. In areas with high citizenship rates and large registered voter shares, each voter has less influence than in areas with smaller shares of registered voters. In trustee areas with smaller numbers of registered voters, each voter has more influence than in areas with higher citizenship and voter registration rates. 7. Trustee area boundaries may be drawn in ways that concentrate members of particular groups into a limited number of districts, reducing their opportunity to be elected in other districts and the extent to which their interests are taken into account by trustees representing other areas (Duncan, 1992). 8. Redistricting every 10 years can be troublesome and expensive. 9. Districting and redistricting are always vulnerable to both gerrymandering attempts and suspicions of gerrymandering. |
The most important legal principle in political districting is the "one person, one vote" rule, which states that political subdivisions should be as equal as possible in total population. It is very important to note that total population (not just adults, voters, or citizens) is used to measure compliance with this requirement. The guiding principle is that elected officials should represent each individual, regardless of age, eligibility to vote, or citizenship.
In practice, the rule is interpreted to mean that the size of the jurisdiction's most populous trustee area minus the size of the least populous trustee area should be no greater than ten percent of the ideal area's size (the population of the most populous area minus the population of the least populous area should not exceed one-tenth of the ideal trustee area's population). This measure is also called the plan's deviation. For jurisdictions like the proposed unified school district, the size of the deviation generally does not matter as long as it is less than ten percent.
The United States Voting Rights Act (as amended and as interpreted by the courts) requires that if there are sufficiently numerous, geographically compact, politically cohesive, protected groups (including Hispanics or Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders) in a jurisdiction, political subdivisions should be drawn to permit them to elect representatives of their choice.
There are several population measures used to assess whether it is possible to create trustee areas that would comply with Voting Rights Act requirements. These are used to determine if a minority group's population share is large enough to enable them to elect representatives of their choice. All three measures are computed from U.S. Census counts: total population, voting age population, and voting age population that is actually eligible to vote. The districting plans developed for the proposed unified school district have been evaluated using one of the three measures: total population.[3]
The California State Education Code requires that trustee areas be as equal as possible in total population. Factors taken into account may include topography; geography; cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory; and communities of interest.
The Education Code permits three different systems for electing trustees (Section 5030):
(a) That each member of the governing board be elected by the registered voters of the entire district.
(b) That one or more members residing in each trustee area be elected by the registered voters of that particular trustee area.
(c) That each governing board member be elected by the registered voters of the entire school district or community college district, but reside in the trustee area which he or she represents.
Voters currently elect trustees at-large in the affected school district, using method (a). Method (b) would provide that only voters within each trustee area elect the representative of their choice, and under this method groups protected under the Voting Rights Act have the most opportunity to do so. Method (c) would provide some of the advantages of electing trustees to represent individual geographical areas combined with the advantages of at-large election.
The Education Code allows districts to require that trustee candidates live in the district that they represent. It also permits trustees to be elected to represent a trustee area, but to live anywhere in the school district.
Section 72022 of the Education Code provides that the number of trustee areas shall not be less than two nor more than seven. Because of possible difficulties in finding candidates to run for election from smaller single-member districts, a five-member system might be preferred over a seven-member alternative.
The Education Code also specifies procedures for making a change in trustee election methods and provides that, if changes are made, incumbents elected under the old system finish their terms of office.
Further legal districting requirements are derived from the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Shaw v. Reno (1994) and subsequent cases. These decisions require that various communities of interest (not just racial or ethnic ones) be taken into account when boundaries are drawn. Communities of interest may include neighborhoods, feeder school districts, socioeconomic areas, politically homogeneous areas, and many other types of areas with uniform characteristics. Shaw v. Reno also held that trustee areas should not be "odd-looking." In our experience, "odd-looking" is very difficult to define.
Based on our review of the literature and the legal requirements shown above, we propose a scenario to establish five trustee areas for the West Contra Costa Unified School District. Under this scenario trustees would be required to reside in each of the five districts and be elected by the registered voters in their district.
We developed a map that includes the cities located within West Contra Costa County and the proposed trustee areas. We used Census 2000 data to calculate the population within each area. Appendix 7 shows the proposed trustee areas boundaries with census tracts and population counts. Appendix 8 illustrates the West Contra Costa Unified School District boundaries and the cities that lie within those boundaries.
Census 2000 counted 230,095 individuals residing within the proposed districtıs boundaries. The California Education Code requires that the U. S. Census population figures be used for districting purposes. Figure 3 details each proposed trustee area with total population and a breakdown of each city; the census tract within each city; and the population of each census tract.
Figure 3 shows the population of cities and unincorporated areas located within the proposed unified school districtıs boundaries. Only Hercules and an unincorporated are not entirely inside the jurisdiction. Richmond has the largest population (43 percent of the districts population) and is split among four of the five proposed trustee areas. Tara Hills, Bayview, and Kensington each have a population share of less than 5 percent.
Figure 3: Population in Cities and Communities
|
City or Community |
|
Population |
|
Share of WCCUSD Population |
|
|
Hercules* |
|
19,488 |
|
9% |
|
|
Pinole |
|
19,039 |
|
9% |
|
|
Tara Hills |
|
5,332 |
|
2% |
|
|
Bayview |
|
2,359 |
|
1% |
|
|
El Sobrante |
|
12,260 |
|
5% |
|
|
San Pablo |
|
30,215 |
|
13% |
|
|
Richmond |
|
99,216 |
|
43% |
|
|
El Cerrito |
|
23,171 |
|
10% |
|
|
Kensington |
4,936 |
|
2% |
||
|
Unincorporated* |
14,079 |
|
6% |
||
|
Total |
|
230,095 |
|
100% |
|
|
*Portion within the WCCUSD boundaries **The city census numbers in Figure 6 may be different in the table because census tracts overlay city boundaries. |
|||||
The territory of the WCCUSD has a diverse population consisting of an equal proportion of Hispanic (23%) and Black (23%), with White at 31% and Asian at 18%. (See Figure 4.)
Figure 4: Race/ Ethnicity Data for Proposed Plan
|
Trustee Area |
Total Population |
Hispanic or Latino |
White |
Black or African American |
American Indian and Alaska Native |
Asian |
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander |
Some other race |
Population of two or more races |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
46,223* |
16% |
37% |
14% |
0% |
27% |
0% |
0% |
4% |
|
2 |
46,281 |
20% |
34% |
23% |
0% |
20% |
0% |
0% |
4% |
|
3 |
46,542 |
34% |
26% |
20% |
0% |
15% |
1% |
1% |
4% |
|
4 |
45,964 |
10% |
46% |
21% |
0% |
19% |
0% |
1% |
4% |
|
5 |
45,085* |
37% |
12% |
40% |
0% |
7% |
1% |
0% |
2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District Total: |
230,095 |
23% |
31% |
23% |
0% |
18% |
0% |
0% |
4% |
|
|
|||||||||
|
Data Sources: Census 2000. Sums of percentages may appear to be greater or less than 100 because of rounding. |
|||||||||
|
*Population is derived from an unincorporated area divided by 2 and dispersed evenly between Trustee Area 1 and 5. |
|||||||||
In order to divide the proposed district into trustee areas, each subarea must have a total population of approximately one-fifth of the total Census 2000 population residing within the boundaries. Our calculations show this number to be 46,019. With a maximum permitted total deviation being ten percent, 4,601 is the greatest amount in population difference allowable among trustee areas. As shown in figure 4 we have met this requirement. Figure 5 shows that our deviation used is less than two percent.
Figure 5: Population Variance Table
|
Trustee Area |
2000 Census Population |
Equal Distribution |
Variance |
Variance % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
46,223 |
46,019 |
204 |
0.44 |
|
2 |
46,281 |
46,019 |
262 |
0.57 |
|
3 |
46,542 |
46,019 |
523 |
1.14 |
|
4 |
45,964 |
46,019 |
-55 |
(0.12) |
|
5 |
45,085 |
46,019 |
-934 |
(2.03) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
230,095 |
230,095 |
0 |
0 |
Because parts of the proposed district have been experiencing population growth, it is certain that any trustee area system established before the Census 2010 results are released in 2011 would have to be re-drawn after the new Census. The California Education Code requires that data from the most recent Census be used for districting.
The California Education Code states that ³communities of interest² may be taken into account when trustee areas are drawn. The school district's cities are one type of community of interest. Racial and ethnic groups are other possible "communities of interest" for districting purposes.
Figure 6: City and Population Data for Proposed Trustee Areas
Trustee Area 1
|
City |
|
Census Tracts |
|
Population |
|
Unincorporated Area |
|
3560.02 |
|
3,215 |
|
Hercules |
|
3591.01 |
|
9,544 |
|
|
|
3592.03 |
|
6,167 |
|
|
|
3592.04 |
|
4,852 |
|
Pinole |
|
3591.02 |
|
5,216 |
|
|
|
3592.02 |
|
6,529 |
|
Tara Hills |
|
3640.02 |
|
5,556 |
|
Bay View |
|
3640.01 |
|
5,144 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
46,223 |
Trustee Area 2
|
City |
|
Census Tracts |
|
Population |
|
El Sobrante |
|
3601.00 |
|
9,200 |
|
|
|
3602.00 |
|
4,980 |
|
|
|
3630.00 |
|
6,829 |
|
San Pablo |
|
3660.02 |
|
5,856 |
|
|
|
3672.00 |
|
4,372 |
|
Richmond |
|
3671.00 |
|
5,326 |
|
|
|
3650.01 |
|
5,519 |
|
|
|
3610.00 |
|
4,199 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
46,281 |
Figure 6: City and Population Data for Proposed Trustee Areas (continued)
Trustee Area 3
|
City |
|
Census Tracts |
|
Population |
|
San Pablo |
|
3660.01 |
|
4,632 |
|
|
|
3680.00 |
|
9,324 |
|
|
|
3690.01 |
|
7,053 |
|
|
|
3690.02 |
|
2,828 |
|
Richmond |
|
3700.00 |
|
2,934 |
|
|
|
3710.00 |
|
5,266 |
|
|
|
3720.00 |
|
7,133 |
|
|
|
3740.00 |
|
4,517 |
|
|
|
3620.00 |
|
2,855 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
46,542 |
Trustee Area 4
|
City |
|
Census Tracts |
|
Population |
|
El Cerrito |
|
3840.00 |
|
3,840 |
|
|
|
3851.00 |
|
2,661 |
|
|
|
3852.00 |
|
1,440 |
|
|
|
3860.00 |
|
3,324 |
|
|
|
3870.00 |
|
2,294 |
|
|
|
3880.00 |
|
2,536 |
|
|
|
3891.00 |
|
1,908 |
|
|
|
3892.00 |
|
1,631 |
|
|
|
3901.00 |
|
2,150 |
|
|
|
3902.00 |
|
1,664 |
|
Kensington |
|
3910.00 |
|
2,458 |
|
|
|
3920.00 |
|
2,314 |
|
Richmond |
|
3830.00 |
|
4,486 |
|
|
|
3820.00 |
|
7,256 |
|
|
|
3800.00 |
|
6,002 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
45,964 |
Figure 6: City and Population Data for Proposed Trustee Areas (continued)
Trustee Area 5
|
City |
|
Census Tracts |
|
Population |
|
Unincorporated Area |
|
3560.02 |
|
3,216 |
|
Richmond |
|
3650.02 |
|
4,076 |
|
|
|
3730.00 |
|
4,290 |
|
|
|
3750.00 |
|
4,502 |
|
|
|
3760.00 |
|
5,959 |
|
|
|
3770.00 |
|
7,596 |
|
|
|
3780.00 |
|
2,895 |
|
|
|
3790.00 |
|
6,329 |
|
|
|
3810.00 |
|
6,222 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
45,085 |
The two election possibilities for this measure to appear on the ballot are shown in Figure 7. Appendix 3 is a flow chart found in the California Department of Education District Organization Handbook, Chapter 10, August 2006. The flow chart outlines the proposal process for the petition to either be approved by the County Board of Education or to be placed on the ballot for the voters to decide.
Figure 7: Petition Timeline
|
Action |
General
Election |
Special
Mail-in Election |
|
|
Petition Start Date |
|
March 1, 2008 |
March 1, 2008 |
|
Petition File Date |
|
May 5, 2008 |
September 2, 2008 |
|
Superintendent Review Period |
May 6 - June 8, 2008 |
September 3 - October 3, 2008 |
|
|
County Committee Public Hearing |
June 9 - August 9, 2008 |
October 4 - December 4, 2008 |
|
|
County Committee Decision Deadline |
August 10, 2008 |
December 5, 2008 |
|
Appendix 1: Membership Roster (Partial List)
|
Name |
|
City/ Unincorporated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert |
Brower |
El Sobrante |
combatlit @ aol.com |
|
Lori |
Chinn |
Hercules |
Lochi510 @ aol.com |
|
Charles |
Cowens |
Kensington |
charley @ cowens.net |
|
Rebecca |
Hazelwood |
El Cerrito |
hrebwrite @ sbcglobal.net |
|
Anton |
Jungherr |
Hercules |
Jungherr2 @ aol.com |
|
Linda |
Lozito |
East Richmond Heights |
lozito @ sbcglobal.net |
|
Antonio |
Medrano |
Unincorporated |
Amedrano3 @ sbcglobal.net |
|
Scottie |
Smith |
El Sobrante |
Rcs101@ att.net |
|
Maureen |
Toms |
Pinole |
maureen.toms @ comcast.net |
|
Jill |
Wolkenfeld |
San Pablo |
sunsetjill @ yahoo.com |
Appendix 4: Election Districts
Contra Costa County
Contra Cost County Board of Supervisors (5) [4]
Contra Costa Community College District Governing Board (5)
Contra Costa County Board of Education (5)
East Bay Municipal Utilities District (7)
East Bay Regional Parks District (7)
State
California State Assembly Districts (80)
California State Senate Districts (42)
U.S. Government
U.S. House of Representatives
Congressional Districts (53)
Assessment of the Potential to Create Trustee Areas for the Reorganized Grant Joint Union High School District, Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research Inc., 2007, pp 4-11.
Meier, Kenneth J., and Eric Gonzalez Juenke. 2005. Electoral Structure and the Quality of Representation on School Boards. In Besieged: School Boards and the Future of Education Politics, ed. William G. Howell. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 199-227.
Viteritti, Joseph P. 2005. The End of Local Politics? in Besieged: School Boards and the Future of Education Politics, ed. William G. Howell. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 308-323.
[1] Busing & Backlash, Lillian B. Rubin, University of California Press, 1972, page 9-10.
[2] Assessment of the Potential to Create Trustee Areas for the Reorganized
Grant Joint Union High School District, Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research Inc._2007, page 2.
[3] Only total population is taken into account when measuring compliance with the one person, one vote requirement.
[4] Numbers in parenthesis represent the number of trustees in each election district/ ward within California
