News
September 18, 2020
link to facebook link to twitter

Potential maps for by-Trustee Elections

By: Cassandra May Albaugh
February 14, 2020

The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD) has posted three conceptual trustee area maps on the district’s website at: https://crpusd.org/our_district. You can access these maps and associated background materials in either Spanish or English by selecting the appropriate link. This posting meets the requirement for the draft maps to be available to the public seven days prior to the next public hearing. They were posted on Feb. 11, and the next public hearing is scheduled for Feb. 18. The first post map public hearing will be part of the regular board meeting at the District Office Board room at 7165 Burton Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA starting at 6 p.m.

Scenario A has the least population variance at only 2.01 percent. Each of the five proposed districts would have between 10,411 and 10,623 residents. As drafted, Board President Brown and Board Clerk Gillies would be in District 1. Neither are up for reelection in 2020 but in 2022 they would have to run against each other if they desired another term on the board. Also, this draft shows Trustee Wiltermood and Trustee Cimino in the same district which is shown as District 2. Cimino’s term doesn’t end until 2022 whereas Wiltermood’s term expires in 2020. Thus, it appears that Trustee Wiltermood could not run for reelection in 2020 unless she moved to another district. 

District 3 of this map is the largest by area and population. It encompasses the City of Rohnert Park west of Highway 101, Cotati and the unincorporated areas to the west and south of those cities. 

This district has no current sitting trustee and could be on the ballot in 2020. District 4 is centered around Technology High School and the District office. It too currently does not have a trustee representative and could be on the ballot in 2020. District 5 is the area between Snyder Lane and Petaluma Hill Road down to East Railroad Avenue. It includes Rancho Cotate High School, the M Section and the University District. It also includes the home of Trustee Nonn whose term expires in 2020. Nonn hasn’t declared whether he intends to run in 2020 but this district will be on the ballot this year along with either District 3 or 4.

Map Scenario B is like scenario A in that it has Brown and Gillies in a proposed District 1, Wiltermood and Cimino in District 2, with Nonn remaining in District 5. District 3 is still centered around Technology High School and the District Office on the southern portion of Rohnert Park and District 4 includes Cotati and unincorporated areas to the west of 101. The main difference between this map and Scenario A is that District 2 extends west of 101 to include the portions of Rohnert Park that lay to the west of the expressway. The population variance is a bit higher at 3.11 percent with the range being from 10,384 to 10,712. If this map was adopted it appears the 2020 election would be for Nonn’s District 5 and again either district 3 or 4.

The map for Scenario C has the most population variance at 4.45 percent. Ranging from 10,376 in District 1 to 10,845 in District 2. As proposed, if adopted, Trustee Gillies would be in District 1. Board President Brown, Trustee Wiltermood, and Trustee Cimino would be in District 2. Trustee Nonn remains in District 5. So, Trustee Wiltermood couldn’t run in her district. Trustee Nonn could run but we don’t know if he is running. In 2022, Board President Brown would have to run against Trustee Cimino if either of them desired reelection. As in all scenario’s District 5 and either District 3 or 4 would be on the ballot in 2020.

What happens if a district after the 2020 election doesn’t have a trustee in their district? My understanding is that the district would remain unrepresented until the election in 2022. Depending on the map adopted – that would appear to be either District 3 or 4. But no map has been adopted yet. You have a chance to weigh-in on which map, if any, you’d like to see adopted by attending the Feb 18 public hearing or submitting your comments. The board may also desire to have additional maps proposed based on public, or their inputs, to the demographer for consideration at future public hearings. Bottom line – now is the time to review and make those views known.