I spent time on Friday reading through both reports. This story has some inaccuracies.

1) The article states, "In a proposal that was pitched in March included the east side request $196 million in bond proceeds. It was rejected." Both reports indicate the payout from West to East was 57% of the bond proceeds, an amount of $112 million. There was no requesting from the East side. This amount to offset asset & liability inequities was suggested by two representatives from the West side transition team as well as two representatives from the East side transition team.

2) The article states, "The east report also includes a safety net that allows the two teams to come up with a plan and use it even after arbitrators have been selected." The West report also contains this same provision, with the exact same wording.

3) The article states, "The [west] report says the east side now seeks $112 million from the west side." The only place I see $112 million mentioned in either report is the balance offset in the March 27 proposal (East report, Exhibit B), and the West report as a narrative. This isn't in the East report.

I read both reports as well, an noticed the same things.

The west report also kept refering to the capital facility needs on the east as being ~$194 million and ignores the JSD information that puts that number much closer to $550-$600 million.

The intial plan put forth by the negotiating team (2 from each side), accounted for all this but the RDTT rejected it (at a meeting where their two representatives were absent). This point of contention could have been solved months ago if they'd just listened to their own.

Let's hope the Mayors' plan has some traction. From Peggy Jo Kennet's comments, it seems there's at least one who will hear it but choose not to listen.

Of note: on page 21 of the NDTT's report it notes that "9 of 12 voting members of the two transition teams have reached an agreement, the remaining 3 members have decided to block the process. These three have stymied the negotiation option and have, in our view, forced the process to arbitration."

Those 3 blocking the process are all elected officials. I'd bet that ANY of the three would be happy to get 75% of the vote over an opponent in their next election. To activetly obstruct, hinder, and delay the process is an abdication of their statutory responsibility. If the mentioned "Mayors' Plan" does not work and this hits arbitration, the blame should be laid at those 3 politicians' feet.

It has been nearly impossible to find objective analysis relative to the division of the Jordan School District. The understandable emotion related to the process has created an obstacle to gaining a full understanding of what is being done to address the overwhelming growth that has taken place in the past decade. One item that is seldom noted is the fact that the Jordan School District has an existing student population of 75,000 and in a few short years it will be over 100,000. The magnitude of dealing with a district of this size has undoubtedly resulted in fewer opportunities for communication between the administration, teachers, students and residents. Thus a need to address the issue. The process has drawn criticism, yet the report shows a good faith effort to bring fairness to the division. The east side will continue to pay their portion of the 2003 bonds for the next 10 to 15 years as well as $3 million each year for equalization. The division kept in place the feeder systems from grade school to high school. The east side will the majority of Title I schools and low income student population. Sad that 3 politicans have blocked progress.

To 75% agree, you note the 3 politicans on the west-side board. Doesn't Peggy Jo Kennett also serve on both school boards, as well as the transition team? Isn't that a massive conflict? How does she get away with that? Just wondering.

This whole process smacks of back room deals and dirty politics. We need to hold all of the candidates accountable who pushed this process.
We need to vote out Cullimore, Dolan, Curtis, and Carlene Walker. It will be a good start to start electing reasonable Democrats and moderate Republicans this fall.
Pretty Boy John Huntsman should step up and call for a Special Session and put this mess on hold. Let's do the right thing by our children!!!

Who are the three politicians you keep referring to as blocking a settlement agreement? School Board members are not politicians! If you want to talk about politicians who have made it impossible to reach a fair and equitable agreement, perhaps you should look at Sen. Walker, Mayor Cullimore and his paid lobbyist, the current mayor of Sandy, the past mayor of Sandy who chairs the NDTT, the State Rep. from Sandy who serves as Speaker of the House, the Rep. from Draper who chairs the House Education Committee; do you want me to go on? Mrs. Kennett serves on both boards as do six other board members because that is what the politicians from the east side wanted and that provision was included in SB 71. If you want answers, why don't you ask Sen. Walker, Rep. Curtis and Mayor Cullimore? By the way, the two members from each of the TTs who participated in "discussions" regarding a settlement were never authorized to make a settlement, only to bring back the information to their respective teams for consideration. All five members of the RDTT participated in the review of the plan, two by conference call.

I still can't beleive I read that!!! School Board members not politicians????

Best laugh I've had all day...

Nowhere in the legislation does it call for City Council members, school board members, etc. to sit on a transition team put together for the SOLE purpose of dividing assets. Some argument can be made for past school board members and others with expertise to help. Currently sitting elected officials has now been shown to be the fiasco it is for such a team.

Your post said "All five members of the RDTT participated in the review of the plan, two by conference call."

This seems to indicate you might be a member of the RDTT. I just went to the Jordan District website to review the minutes of the RDTT's April 3, 2008 meeting. This was the meeting where the RDTT voted to reject the first proposal the two members of the RDTT helped craft. Those minutes specifically say that the two members who helped put that proposal together, Mr. Horst and Mr. Nielsen were excused from that meeting due to having prior business commitments. No where in the minutes does it say these gentlemen participated via a conference call. I would think that if they had been on a conference call when the vote to reject had been taken, that small detail would have been mentioned. Since it wasn't, the minutes of that meeting indicate that even though the vote to reject was "unanimous," those two men didn't participate in that vote since they weren't there. The "unanimous" only represented a vote of those in attendance, as indicated by the minutes of the meeting.

I keep reading about 3 elected officials on the West's transition team. I decided to look up the CURRENT jobs/positions of people on each team.

West--
Haws: Retired from the JSD Board, a 2008 candidate for the USOE Board (elected position--however, he was not one of the filing candidates who was chosen to be included on the November 2008 ballot).
Higbee: Bank executive
Horst: South Jordan city administrator
Johnson: West Jordan City Councilwoman (elected position)
Kennett: Member JSD Board (elected position)
Nielsen: Credit Union executive

East:
Newton: Practicing attorney
Burningham: Owner/principal of a business consulting firm
Shelton: Enptreneur/businessman
Smith: Accountant/small business owner
Day: Retired JSD employee
Sanderson: Retired JSD employee
Petersen: Utah Education Network Executive Director

None of the East's team are currently serving in publicly elected positions. It appears that two of the West's team are currently serving in political positions (elected positions by a vote of the people), and a third was a candidate for an elected position while serving on the West's team. I believe this is what people are referring to when they talk about the "three politicians" on the West's team.

What's more Kennett's elected position is as a school board member of the very district whose assets she is dividing up. Talk about a conflict. Don't kid yourself that her work on one committee doesn't affect and influence the other.