The United States District Court in Utah, through the services of Special Master Bernard Grofman, is in the process of redrawing the County Commission and School Board Election Districts in San Juan County. The court will hold public hearings in Monticello and Bluff to receive public input on proposed preliminary election districts. San Juan County residents are encouraged to attend the public hearings.
Meeting Details
Public Meeting in Monticello:
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017
Time: 10:30 am – 12:30 pm
Location: Hideout Community Center, 49 West 600 South, Monticello, UT 84535
Public Meeting in Bluff:
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017
Time: 3:30 pm – 5:30 pm
Location: Bluff Community Center, 3rd East and Mulberry, Bluff Rd, Bluff, UT 84512
Additional Information
The court’s preliminary proposed districts are the result of a careful process by the Special Master that was aimed at addressing specific constitutional and statutory requirements, while abiding by good governance standards. In particular, all three districts for the County Commission must have the same population, to the extent feasible, and all districts for the School Board must have the same population (taking into account the deannexation of the Spanish Valley area) to the extent feasible, with more precise population balancing taking place in the final version of each plan after public comments have been received.
While constitutional and statutory requirements necessarily take precedence, when addressing map revisions the court is most interested in the adoption of plans that abide by good governance standards. Good governance dictates that plans not split political sub-units if that is geographically and demographically feasible, that all districts be contiguous, and that communities of interest are reflected, as are the locations of schools vis-a-vis the School Board plan.
Below are links to the Special Master’s preliminary report and detail and summary maps of various conceptual plans.
Special Master Preliminary Report
Conceptual Plans prepared by the Special Master
County Commission Districts
Conceptual Plan A: Detail Summary
Conceptual Plan B: Detail Summary
Conceptual Plan C: Detail Summary
School Board Election Districts
Conceptual Plan 1: Detail Summary
Conceptual Plan 2 Detail Summary
Because of the constitutional and statutory requirements, the Special Master is constrained in the types of feedback he can incorporate into his final recommendation. It would be most useful to the court for the public to focus their comments on the following issues:
1. Do you notice any inaccuracies in the proposed maps, e.g., in city or place boundaries?
2. Do you prefer one proposed preliminary County Commission plan over another? If so, why?
3. Do you prefer one proposed preliminary School Board plan over another? If so, why?
Comments that will be most useful to the court will focus on if and how these plans meet good governance criteria, or how the plans could be improved to better meet good governance standards.
Public Meeting Announcement
Complete Public Meeting Announcement
Public Announcement in Navajo
Public Announcement in English
Written Comments
Written comments will also be accepted via email for those who are unable to attend the public meeting, or those who attend the meeting but want to provide comment via email. Please email your written comments to redistricting@utd.uscourts.gov. Please limit your written comments to two pages or 500 words; and please focus your comments on the issues described in the public meeting announcement. Written comments must be received by Friday, November 17th, to be considered.
I want to comment on the plans to redistrict San Juan County. Although you take into account the ethnic make up of the voters you did not account for the religious affiliations of the population, nor should you. However the county has maintained control based on a theocracy that is still prevalent today. The only Native American on the council defers to her elders as taught in her religion, just ask why she was not made the Chairperson of the Board this year?
I believe the only way around this is not stay with a 3 seat commission and move towards a five seat commission which would better able dilute the power of the dominant religion of the county.
We do not have a conflict of interest financially as much as we have a historical conflict of interest where Commissioners base decisions on who is related to whom. Two of the current commissioners are at least by names related to the first European white settlers of the area in 1880. Even the local newspaper encouraged the misinformation that the those white settlers were the first settlers of the region discarding the indigenous settlers who worked and lived for years in the area. This is the prevalent thought process of the residents of the county. A look at the history of the residents shows a disrespect of the native population thru the years, which carries over to the current political situation which required the lawsuit to gain equal representation.
Here is a case in point, the Navajo Nation contributed in the 1990’s around $980,000 to San Juan county for construction of 2 Transfer Stations [Bluff – Mexican Hat] and the main landfill at the bottom of White Mesa. Five years ago the Hole-in-the Rock Foundation constructed a Campground next to the Bluff Transfer Station. Since that time the Foundation has moved to close the Transfer Station and has had the county working to make this happening, even as it will violate an agreement made with the Navajo Nation.
I hope that you will look at a 5 person commission to further dilute the influence of the non-native population and allow for a true representation process in the county.
Thank You for your time and attention to this matter.
Westley Shook III
435-672-2317
NONE of the proposed maps are acceptable because they split the community of Blanding.
The maps should not be drawn based on race! To do so is blatantly racist!
The Blanding community (all those who call Blanding home, not just those within official city limits) should maintain its collective voice.
To the Court and the team addressing the redistricting of San Juan County:
My name is Kristen Bushnell. I am a 30-year old Anglo working as the Architecture and Engineering teacher at White Horse High School in Montezuma Creek. I have owned a home in Bluff for the past 4 years and have been living permanently in this area for the past 8 years. I have worked as a server, a receptionist, a fire fighter, an emergency medical responder, a kindergarten teacher and a high school teacher. I have worked at almost every business in Bluff. I have volunteered at every public service level available in Bluff. I am very familiar with the broad perspectives of the people within my community.
In a previous life, I worked in the field of architecture and construction, graduating with a Masters of Architecture from the University of Utah. Most of my efforts were spent overseas working in areas of post-conflict. I have worked in Mali, West Africa; the Embassy of Mali in Washington, D.C.; and Cambodia, Southeast Asia. Much of the work I pursued addressed the rehabilitation of both physical and social/political infrastructures within an area of past conflict.
I came to this area on a project through the University of Utah, called Design-Build Bluff, which designs and constructs residential homes and community centers for Native Americans. Leaning on my past experience, I quickly became fully engaged with this community and have sacrificed much to stay in this place where I feel I can truly make a difference.
As you are aware, a few days ago Bluff voted to Incorporate as it’s own city. This came about in response to our community’s sentiment that San Juan County was not upholding their responsibilities to us as citizens within their care. We have voted with a large margin to address these voids by generating our own revenue and implementing our own form of governance. There is a tough road ahead, but it is a progressive path for our community.
I am pleased that the Court has concluded the need for redistricting both County Commission seats and School Board seats. I have a high investment in both.
My first choice of boundaries for County Commission redistricting would be Conceptual Plan CC_B, in which the areas of Bluff, White Mesa, Montezuma Creek, Aneth and Navajo to the state line would be included in District 3. I appreciate this arrangement because I feel that it pools together the population drawing on the local resources of the area in which it covers. The population within the District 3 boundary shares fire and ambulance emergency services, enforcement officers, school bus routes, trash transfer stations, roads and local job/business opportunities. As a secondary choice Conceptual Plan CC_C would solicit compromise based on the reasons outlined above though not to the same extent that CC_B would unite our district.
As a teacher, I feel that Conceptual Plan SB_1 is an accurate representation of school areas. Bluff Elementary pulls in students from the state line (near Red Mesa, Arizona). The map showing District 3 in this preliminary concept couples the town of Bluff to the students and parents that Bluff Elementary serves along Highway 191. This map also couples Montezuma Creek schools, White Horse High and Montezuma Creek Elementary, to the students and parents of which they serve in District 4. It allows the majority of Blanding to remain intact so that the students and parents of their schools are also voting for delegates that accurately represent them.
Thank you for your time and efforts to address this long-overdue process. I appreciate you and your team taking the time to host these public meetings to deliver accurate information and have a respectful open conversation.
Kristen Bushnell
I am completely against any of the three plans because it splits Blanding into two or three districts for racial purposes, and the Judge already ruled that the county could not be split for racial purposes, so Blanding needs to stay whole. It is wrong and against the law to split a community for racial purposes.
I reject all three maps proposed. There is nothing more fair than every voter voting for all three commissioners. Districts disenfranchise ALL voters because they are only allowed to vote for one of their three representatives The boundaries we have were set by a federal court and now we are being sued in federal court for being in compliance with that court order. As I understand it the right to change the boundaries was taken from our commissioners. This fiasco had placed the County in an impossible situation.
You claim to have created these maps from scratch but that is a lie. These are slight variations on the map provided by the Tribe 6 years ago.
You fail to acknowledge the reality that approximately 22% of the population of the community of Blanding lies outside the incorporated boundaries. If you insist they are not part of our community than that means there can be NO communities outside incorporated boundaries – Mexican Had, Oljato, Monument Valley, Aneth and so on.
You state that race cannot be the primary concern in determining boundaries yet that is the only statistic listed on the maps and it is the clearly stated objective of the entire process. I find it disconcerting that the race statistics did not appear on the maps presented in Bluff.
The dominant message in Monticello was None of the Above. Surprisingly that were a great number of people of every ethnicity in Bluff who expressed the same opinion, rejecting all three maps. I most particularly appreciated the comments of the last woman who spoke. She was from Monument Valley. The said she would pick map C but that you should change it to ‘leave Blanding alone… they are a community’. I completely agree.
I do not believe in racism. The whole premise of this redistricting effort is in it self racist. These people that are trying to split our city up are blatantly trying to get native Americans on the commission. I am not apposed to any qualified person being on the commission, I don’t care what color they are. Native Americans are already the majority in Blanding so why is this redistricting being considered? Well its quite obvious! They are also making the assumption that Natives Americans will automatically vote for a Native American. HOW RACIST IS THAT! Please leave things alone and let that natural pace of the politics do what it will do.
NONE of the proposed maps are acceptable because they split the community of Blanding
I just browsed thru the 52 page Special Master Preliminary Report. What has happened to common sense?
None of the plans are acceptable.
1942 – I started at age 6 ln the first grade at Blanding Elementary school. I don’t believe there were any Ute or Navajo children in the school system.
1952 – My father and his partner completed the water tunnel through the Blue Mountain, using primarily Navajo laborers. They were excellent help. I worked with them and have good relations with their families, that continue today.
1954 – I graduated from San Juan High School. There were a few indian students in the high school. None in my graduating class.
1969 – I began teaching Industrial Arts at San Jaun High School. Half the studentbody were
indian students. I had many memorable and valuable experiences involving indian students.
1980 – Over a brief span, thru early to mid 1980’s, I worked for Utah Navajo Industries, White Mesa Ute Council, and started Cedar Mesa Pottery Co, which was completely relient on Navajo and Ute artists.
My son, Joe B. Lyman, is managing the pottery to this day, still relying on Navajo help.
It would take far more than 52 pages to fill in all the details of my experiences of the last 75 years, but just a few words,l can tell you that through much hard work and sacrafice there has been tremendous progress and growth with respect to anglo/ indian relations in San Juan. No doubt there is more to do and there will always be opportunities to grow, but if any of the conceptual plans are lmplemented it will be a big step backwards.