On August 3, the Buncombe County Board of Education convened to discuss the difficulties of implementing the mandates in House Bill 66. The bill provides that six of seven members of the Buncombe County Board of Education would be elected from pure electoral districts beginning in 2024 and requires the Buncombe County Board of Education to establish those electoral districts by February 1, 2024,
Members expressed frustrations that compliance would be “impossible,” even if they were “inclined to fulfill the legislature’s directives”.
Attorney Dean Shatley outlined the board’s concerns, identifying two significant hurdles. First, SECTION 6.(d) (2) of the legislation demands that each district “shall be comprised of contiguous territory.” This stipulation poses a logistical nightmare, as several schools within the jurisdiction of the Buncombe County Board of Education are landlocked by Asheville City Schools. The territories of these schools do not connect, thus making contiguous districting a non-starter.
Shatley’s second concern regards the bill’s restriction on using only the 2020 census data to determine district population sizes. Given that some census blocks overlap Asheville City Schools and Buncombe County Schools, using the 2020 census data alone offers an incomplete picture. Shatley suggested that alternative methodologies would be necessary for accurate districting.
Board member Amanda Simpkins voiced similar concerns, highlighting the legislature’s unrealistic expectations. She emphasized, “So even if we wanted to do what they want us to do, we can’t because of the language that is currently in the bill.”
Although Shatley concurred with Simpkins’ assessment, he acknowledged the need for viable solutions. Unfortunately, the board meeting yielded no proposed resolutions.
Vice Chair Amy Churchill criticized the legislation as a “solution to a problem that did not exist.” She identified herself as a fiscal conservative, questioning the financial wisdom of implementing such a bill without discussing the actual costs involved. This calls into question her previous support for a 340% salary increase for board members in November 2021, costing the taxpayers $78,154.
Ron Elliot, another board member, lambasted the bill as an “extremely unpopular partisan initiative,” suggesting that its implementation could potentially drain resources that would be better spent on teachers’ salaries.
Given the evident complexities, we contacted Amy Brown in Buncombe County’s Legal Department for answers to several pertinent questions:
- What specific costs are associated with this implementation?
- If the board deems it impossible to redraw district lines, why haven’t they formally communicated this to the General Assembly, allowing for alternative solutions?
The Buncombe County Board of Education must not evade its responsibilities by declaring the bill too burdensome to implement. They are, after all, not above the law.
For those interested in the details of House Bill 66, it’s available for review on the North Carolina General Assembly website, with Section 6 explicitly detailing Buncombe County requirements. It is noteworthy that the bill was universally opposed by North Carolina House Democrats, including all three representatives from Buncombe County—Eric Ager (District 114), Lindsey Prather (District 115), and Caleb Rudow (District 116).
The complexities of implementing House Bill 66 demand a proactive, not reactive, stance. It is high time for all parties to collaboratively find a way forward in the interest of both fiscal responsibility and electoral integrity.
