1. Proportional Representation Potential board configurations for unified unions Produced in collaboration with Chris Leopold

2. 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.

3. 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 obligation

4. Three Basic Models  Proportional 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.

5. Proportional Representation: District by District Representation 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:  Maximum number of school directors is 18.  Each member/forming school district is entitled to have at least one school director.  Variations in proportionality of 10% or more is generally problematic.

6. Proportional Representation: Hypothetical Five Towns by Population TownPopulation% Argyle1,23010.6 Big Creek1,41012.1 Carleton2,49021.4 Drifter2,65022.8 Elton3,80532.8 Total11,585 Population per Board Member # Board MembersPopulation/Board Member 7 1655 9 1287 11 1053

7. Ex. Nine Member Board TownPopulation% of 1287# of Board Members % of Board Argyle1,23010.6.95111.1 Big Creek1,41012.11.09111.1 Carleton2,49021.41.93222.2 Drifter2,65022.82.05222.2 Elton3,80532.82.95333.3 Total11,58599.7999.9

8. Ex. Eleven Member Board TownPopulaton%Ratio to 1053 # of Board Members % of Board Argyle1,23010.61.1619.0 Big Creek1,41012.11.3319.0 Carleton2,49021.42.36218.1 Drifter2,65022.82.51327.2 Elton3,80532.83.61436.3 Total11,58599.71199.6

9. Ex. Thirteen Member Board TownPopulation%Ratio to 891 # Board Members % of Board Argyle1,23010.61.3817.6 Big Creek1,41012.11.58215.3 Carleton2,49021.42.79323.0 Drifter2,65022.82.97323.0 Elton3,80532.84.27430.7 Total11,58599.71399.6

10. 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 districts

11. Weighted voting: Hypothetical TownPopulation%# DirectorsWeighed Vote Argyle1,23010.61 Big Creek1,41012.11 Carleton2,49021.41 Drifter2,65022.81 Elton3,80532.81 Total11,5855100 ** 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.

12. Weighted Voting: Unequal Directors TownPopulation%Board Members Weighed Vote per District Weighted Vote per Director Argyle1,2309.31 Big Creek1,41010.61 Carleton2,49018.82 9.4 Drifter2,65020.02 10.0 Elton3,80528.24 7.05 Fayette5754.31 Gulf4253.21 Harbor6254.71 Total13,21099.1 ** Does my vote matter?

13. 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 voting

14. 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 TownPop.%#Bd. Mem. % Argyle1,23010.6111.1 Big Creek1,41012.1111.1 Carleton2,49021.4222.2 Drifter2,65022.8222.2 Elton3,80532.8333.3 Total11,5859

15. 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 DistrictPop.%#Bd. Members %People/Board Mem. Bennington13,60269.0436.43,400 Shaftsbury1,97410.0218.2987 Pownal2,44112.4218.21,221 North Bennington 1,4217.2218.2711 Woodford2861.519.1286 Total19,724100.011100.01,793 (avg)

16. Proportional Hybrid TownPopulation%# Bd. Members Argyle1,23010.61 Big Creek1,41012.11 Carleton2,49021.42 Drifter2,65022.82 Elton3,80532.83 At-large--2 Total11,58511 * Can create a sense of district identity or lessen the impact of rounding numbers up or down over many districts.

17. 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.

18. QUESTIONS?