DATELINE APRIL 1, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
CLEMSON PRESIDENT DISAVOWS VOUCHER STUDY
James Barker, president of Clemson University, has disavowed the controversial study commissioned by the S.C. Policy Council and the Legislative Education Action Drive (LEAD) of Chicago, and authored by Cotton Lindsey, a professor of economics at Clemson University.
In an email response to concerned Clemson alumni, Barker wrote last night, "The study in question is a 'Cotton Lindsey study' not a 'Clemson study'. Clemson has not and will not take a political position on this issue."
Barker's statement disputes the declaration made by Eric O'Keefe, LEAD president, on Wednesday to Rep. Shirley Hinson's House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Economic Development, Capital Improvement and Other Taxes. O'Keefe said the Policy Council and LEAD "paid a premium to get a Clemson University study."
The disavowal also undermines the insistence of Governor Mark Sanford and his former advisor, Barbara Nielsen, who has used the Clemson University name in television ads promoting the governor's voucher bill. In the latest rounds of tv ads, Nielsen notes the "Clemson study," not the "Policy Council study" or the "Cotton Lindsey study."
CHARLESTON ED NETWORK PRESIDENT CALLS FOR EQUAL TIME
Jon Butzon, president of the Charleston Education Network, has called on Rep. Shirley Hinson to grant opponents of Governor Mark Sanford's voucher proposal equal time in the name of "fair play."
Notice of a public hearing on the voucher was given late yesterday morning, and by early afternoon, all of the slots allowed by Hinson to proponents and opponents of the bill were filled. The hearing is scheduled Wednesday, April 6 at 3 p.m. in the Blatt Building.
But Hinson gave proponents from South Carolinians for Responsible Government and the Legislative Education Action Drive (LEAD) of Chicago a 90-minute opportunity to sell the plan on Wednesday. Speakers at the April 6 public hearing will only have five minutes each. Sixteen five-minute slots have been allowed for opponents, and proponents will have another sixteen five-minute slots.
[For those keeping count, this will total almost three hours of time (2:50) allotted to proponents of the bill, and only 80 minutes of time for opponents, cumulatively.]
Butzon's letter, sent to Hinson and copied to various newspaper editors last night, reads:
"Ms. Hinson:
"Yesterday you granted proponents of the Let's Abandon Public Schools Act (H.3652) 90 minutes to promote their bill, denying opponents of the bill a similar time to present facts in opposition. I expect that you will argue that what you did was to get "expert testimony" on the bill, but you got a lopsided view and certainly not from all the experts. This meeting was supposed to "orient the committee" to the bill, a task that any and every sponsor of the Bill should be able to do, though I'm finding that many have not yet read the bill. There are two sponsors on your subcommittee, you and Mr. Limehouse. Either of you should have been able to conduct that orientation. However, there may be something to be said for hearing directly from a bill's author. Otherwise, there was no need for outside input unless you got it from both sides of the issue, a discrepancy I ask you to set right.
"You might think that the good people of your district sent you to Columbia to further the Governor's agenda. You would be wrong. They sent you to Columbia to protect and defend the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, an oath you took and swore to uphold. The Constitution is in place to ensure that everybody in this state gets a fair shake. Just because somebody has money, or says what the Governor likes to hear, or passes out money so that they can try some awful experiment on South Carolina's children, they don't get special treatment. You swore to play fair and you didn't. You know you didn't play fair and I know you didn't play fair. And we both know that you have a moral obligation to fix that. "I look forward to your announcement of another meeting to do just that."
Jon Butzon
Hinson has allotted 20 minutes to the Board of Economic Advisors at the April 6 public hearing, in hopes that the BEA's study on "cost savings" will be ready by that date. Dr. Bill Gillespie, the state's chief economist, revealed Wednesday that state resources and personnel are being used by Hinson and other pro-voucher members of the subcommittee to conduct research specifically designed to support the bill. Gillespie said his staff has worked on this research for the past six months, at pro-voucher legislators' request.
Hinson has determined that the public hearing on April 6 will not last longer than three hours, but Hinson can choose to open a second hearing at a later date. Those who would like for voucher opponents to have equal time to speak against the Sanford plan can contact Hinson at 803-734-2951 (legislative office in Columbia) or 843-572-1722 (home), or email her at HinsonS@scstatehouse.net and ask for equal time.
DATELINE APRIL 8, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
HINSON SUBCMTE ADOPTS SANFORD VOUCHERS 3-1
As expected, Rep. Shirley Hinson of Goose Creek, Rep. Chip Limehouse of Charleston and Rep. Jim McGee of Florence voted Thursday to allow the diversion of more than $200 million annually from the General Fund through a pair of tax credits designed to encourage enrollment in private and parochial schools. By the three-to-one vote, with only Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter opposing the measure, the Hinson subcommittee approved Governor Mark Sanford's voucher-and-tax credit scheme without discussion of the bill's provisions.
Rep. Alex Harvin, who was absent from the meeting, sent written notice of his opposition to the bill.
The vote took place in a meeting called by Hinson following the adjournment of the House session, and it lasted only fifteen minutes, sharply contrasting the four-hour marathon public hearing crashed -- and lengthened -- by Sanford on Wednesday.
There, more than 30 proponents and opponents of the Sanford bill praised and trashed the legislation in five-minutes segments, more or less, with Sanford himself grandstanding before television cameras for nearly fifteen minutes. In his monologue's successive closing statements, Sanford offered the Milwaukee voucher program as a model, praised China's competitive education system as a model, and quoted the free-market sentiments of both Thomas Friedman and Bill Gates.
In scheduling the public hearing, Hinson restricted the number of people who would speak, and she set their time limit at five minutes each. Even S.C. Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum delivered a cogent offense of the Sanford voucher plan -- and a data-driven defense of progress being made in public schools -- in her five-minute-only opportunity at the hearing's opening. Sanford was not one of the scheduled speakers but made a theatrical entrance to the hearing and interrupted the remarks of his own fourth education advisor, Charmeka Bosket, whose repetition of talking points of third education advisor Barbara Nielsen was well under way.
After Sanford's departure, Hinson advised the hearing that "the governor has completely thrown us off, but I hated to tell the governor that." And several speakers (including the Rev. Richard Davis of Clergy for Education Options, Rich Townsend of the Southern Association of Black Independent Schools, parent Hollie Bennett and the Rev. Huey Mills of the S.C. Association of Christian Schools -- all voucher proponents) continued speaking past their allotted time, with Hinson's permission. When the hearing dragged toward 6 p.m., however, Hinson asked the last 14 listed speakers to shorten their remarks -- that is, not to take their full five minutes each -- in order that she might adjourn the hearing sooner.
But Thursday's subcommittee meeting was a subdued affair, attended by only 15 or so lobbyists, lawmakers and reporters. McGee advised Hinson that he has drafted an amendment that re-writes the bill, crafting a straightforward voucher plan and eliminating Sanford's proposed tax credits. But after consulting with Sanford and House leaders, McGee said, he would honor their request that he hold his amendment until the full Ways and Means Committee meets on the bill.
"I believe that choice should be a vital component of education in South Carolina," McGee said. "It's apparent that people have drawn their opinions about the bill. As it sits, it doesn't appear to have the votes to pass the House."
Although the legislature's subcommittee structure is designed to allow discussion and debate to craft, amend or dispose of legislation as necessary, Limehouse agreed that the full committee was the "proper venue" for McGee's amendments.
Cobb-Hunter advised then that she, too, will bring amendments to the full committee, which may take up the voucher package as early as next week. "It's no secret, I'm not supportive of the bill," she said. "I want to address some accountability issues, and I'm still waiting to see a fiscal impact statement."
Though Hinson is a co-sponsor of Sanford's voucher bill and has been quoted in numerous venues expressing support for the concept, she told her subcommittee, "This has been a difficult issue." She also has amendments to the bill, she said, but would bring them to the full committee "rather than clouding it, making it cumbersome with amendments."
One of her proposals, she said, "failing all else, is to look at doing a pilot program."
"We've learned a lot" from the public hearing's speakers, she said and added, "I've given thought to deregulating schools who lose ten percent of their population and allow them to operate as a charter school, give them the flexibility to do what they need to do for their students and their needs."
Again, feigning objectivity toward the bill, she suggested that a favorable vote from the subcommittee was appropriate if only to "allow greater debate by more people" in the full committee.
In a startling lament from a subcommittee chair who has served in the legislature for nearly a decade, Hinson opined, "It's difficult to sit and know that you're under public scrutiny all the time."
"All of us are believers in the system, and nobody wants to derail it," she concluded.
McGee then moved to give the voucher bill a favorable report, with Limehouse seconding. Hinson joined them in voting for the motion, with Cobb-Hunter opposing. Hinson noted that Harvin had communicated his opposition in writing.
The bill may be placed on the full committee's calendar as early as Tuesday, depending on the fullness of its agenda.
COLUMBIA CHAMBER ANNOUNCES VOUCHER OPPOSITION
Joining a number of local chambers of commerce who have allied beneath the Choose Children First banner, the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce announced on Thursday its opposition to Sanford's voucher plan. Chamber President Ike McLeese highlighted legislative positions his organization has shared with Sanford -- their joint support for tort reform, legislative rule changes, etc. -- but said his chamber leaders "cannot support the school tuition tax credit bill in its present form."
"We are very concerned about the transfer of state tax dollars to private educational institutions without accountability to the taxpayer," McLeese said. "We find nothing in the proposed legislation that addresses student academic achievement standards for private- or home-schooled children who qualify for the tuition tax credit, nor any provision for school, teacher or curriculum standards."
"Additionally, we are concerned about the tax implications of this bill. We do not believe that the state's already tightly-budgeted General Fund can withstand the removal of $135 million to $250 million in tuition tax credits projected by this legislation without new taxes or fees levied as replacement," he added. "Legislation of this kind sets a precedent for 'designated taxation,' potentially opening a Pandora's box of legislation created to allocate tax dollars for special purpose allocation."
The Greater Columbia Chamber includes 2,000 members in Calhoun, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lexington, Newberry and Richland counties. McLeese said the local chamber acts as the voice of its members and the business community on matters of economic, educational, social, cultural and political concern.
RYBERG TERI-KILL AMENDMENTS FAIL
Sen. Greg Ryberg of Aiken County attempted to kill the Teachers and Employees Retention Incentive (TERI) and to eliminate the 28-year retirement option for educators and state employees yesterday, offering amendments to a retirement system investment bill (S 618) under consideration by the Senate. All three of his attempts failed.
One important amendment by Sen. Glenn Reese of Spartanburg County was adopted, however, which eliminates the cap of earnings of state retirees.
S 618 seeks to allow the S.C. Retirement Systems Investment Board greater flexibility in investing funds in foreign markets, and it establishes an advisory panel. Because the bill affects the retirement system, it provided Ryberg a convenient vehicle; by offering amendments on the Senate floor, Ryberg could avoid risking defeat of the controversial proposals at the committee or subcommittee level.
One amendment sought to close the program to new participants effective July 1, 2005, but Sen. Nikki Setzler of Lexington County moved to table the proposal and the proposal was tabled by a vote of 30-10. A second Ryberg amendment sought to eliminate the 28-year retirement option altogether, moving the standard retirement back to 30 years for all teachers and state employees. Sen. Thomas Alexander of Oconee County moved to table this one, and it was tabled by a voice vote.
Ryberg's third amendment called for a comprehensive study of the retirement system and its investments, with the study and accompanying analysis delivered to the General Assembly within two years, and the elimination of the TERI program within two years UNLESS the legislature voted again to maintain it. Again, Alexander moved to table Ryberg's amendment, and Ryberg's effort was killed by a vote of 32-7.
But the amendment by Reese allows retirees to earn unlimited income without penalty to retirement benefits. Currently, a state retiree suffers a penalty in retirement benefits if he or she earns more than $50,000 annually. Reese argued that this places unnecessary limitations on a retirees' ability to continue to earn a living and draw retirement benefits. The Senate agreed and removed the earnings cap by a voice vote.
DATELINE APRIL 11, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
SANFORD VOUCHER BILL ON WAYS/MEANS AGENDA TUESDAY
Governor Mark Sanford's voucher-and-tax-credit proposal has been included on the agenda of Rep. Bobby Harrell's House Ways and Means Committee meeting, scheduled shortly following adjournment of the House on Tuesday. That agenda is already packed with reports of various subcommittees, but bills may be considered out-of-order at Harrell's discretion.
H 3652, the voucher bill, was adopted by Rep. Shirley Hinson's Economic Development, Capital Investment and Other Taxes Subcommittee last Thursday, by a 3-1 vote.
The SCEA and many other entities, including local chambers of commerce across the state, plus business and community leaders, parents and other organizations in the education community, oppose H 3652 and any amendments that maintain its diversion of public dollars from public schools or from the state's General Fund. The SCEA President Sheila C. Gallagher has urged members to contact lawmakers on the Ways and Means Committee today, tomorrow and until the bill is discussed by that committee, to voice their opposition.
DATELINE APRIL 14, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
WAYS/MEANS VOUCHER DEBATE TO FOLLOW BUSH SPEECH
The House Ways and Means Committee's debate on Governor Mark Sanford's voucher-and-tax-credit plan will apparently occur Monday, following a speech by President George W. Bush to a joint assembly of the South Carolina General Assembly. It is speculated that Bush may announce an appointment of Speaker David Wilkins to an ambassadorship, or may endorse Sanford's voucher plan, but there is no evidence yet to confirm either.
There is evidence, however, that Sanford's voucher plan will cost South Carolina's General Fund more than $200 million annually. A fiscal impact statement prepared by the Board of Economic Advisors was ready for distribution at Tuesday's committee meeting, in anticipation that the committee might get to the bill on that day's calendar. While chief economic Bill Gillespie is expected to explain the statement at next Monday's meeting, interpretation of the statement is already clear: Sanford's proposal drains the General Fund, and the so-called cost-savings touted by the S.C. Policy Council, South Carolinians for Responsible Government, the Legislative Education Action Drive and others have proven virtually non-existent. Even Rep. Shirley Hinson, the voucher proponent who shepherded Sanford's plan to a 3-1 vote in a Ways and Means subcommittee last week, has backpedaled in interviews with state media.
Several amendments to the voucher plan are being devised by committee members for discussion on Monday.
The SCEA and many other entities, including local chambers of commerce across the state, plus business and community leaders, parents and other organizations in the education community, remain opposed to H 3652 and any amendments that maintain its diversion of public dollars from public schools or from the state's General Fund. The SCEA President Sheila C. Gallagher has urged members to contact lawmakers on the Ways and Means Committee today, tomorrow and until the bill is discussed by that committee, to voice their opposition.
DATELINE APRIL 18, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
SANFORD VOUCHERS ADOPTED BY COMMITTEE, 12-9
A majority of the House Ways and Means Committee handed Governor Mark Sanford and out-of-state voucher interests a victory this afternoon as the committee approved H 3652 by a vote of 12-9. An amendment designed to re-draft the entire voucher-and-tax-credit plan failed on a tie vote, 11-11. But three other amendments passed, including one by Rep. Adam Taylor of Laurens which narrows the plan to a pilot program in only two school districts, to be identified by the Department of Education according to criteria set by the amendment.
Votes by Rep. Lanny Littlejohn of Spartanburg, Rep. Dan Cooper of Greenville and Taylor proved to be crucial, as every other member of the committee had previously taken public positions for and against the bill. The three voted together on most recorded votes on amendments and parliamentary motions but split on the straight up-or-down vote on the bill, with Littlejohn opposing the bill, Taylor favoring the bill, and Cooper present but abstaining. Because the vote was so close, however, it bears noting that if Taylor and Cooper had voted with Littlejohn, the voucher bill would have died with a tie vote.
Oddly, though Rep. Annette Young was present for much of the debate, she did not record a position in any of the roll call votes and she left before the final vote was taken.
The two other approved amendments protect funding to firefighters -- funding that was threatened by Sanford's proposed tax credit for insurance premiums -- and allow contributors to public schools to qualify for the same dollar-for-dollar credit that Sanford sought for contributors to voucher-granting organizations for private and parochial education.
In supporting the bill, as expected, Hinson took the lead. In opposing it, Cobb-Hunter did the heavy lifting with assists from Clyburn, Cotty and Kennedy.
Though she had two formal opportunities to amend the bill in the subcommittee she chaired, Hinson offered this afternoon a massive strike-and-insert amendment co-authored by eight other committee members that re-drew the plan with vouchers and tax credits but without voucher-granting organizations, euphemistically called scholarship-granting organizations.
She urged the committee to approve it "to get to the floor, to the whole House, a bill to debate," and said she anticipated that about 10 percent of students in failing public schools would use the voucher plan. Under questioning from Kennedy she admitted that no fiscal impact statement was ready on the bill, though the amendment was drawn last week.
Clyburn asked whether the new amendment didn't make H 3652 even more of a strict voucher bill. "No, we could just as easily call it a state scholarship bill," Hinson replied. Asked whether it was even clearer that public schools would lose state funding, she answered, "Yeah."
Clyburn asked, too, whether Hinson had won the approval of district superintendents, administrators or The SCEA for the amendment. "I don't think we've ever had their approval for any change," Hinson said. "I think there's a fear factor that they're going to lose students and teachers, and that schools are going to close."
Asked further if the state Chamber of Commerce had declared a position on the bill or the amendment, Hinson responded, "I don't know if they've weighed in, and that's probably a wise decision for them." [In fact, while the state chamber hasn't yet announced a position on Sanford's voucher-and-tax-credit plan, several local chambers of commerce have stated their opposition loudly and clearly.]
Clyburn advised Hinson that superintendents, administrators and educators in his district, straddling Aiken and Edgefield counties on the state's western border, were unanimously opposed to it. Though Hinson's district is near Charleston, she explained to Clyburn that his local educators were just "scared to death of it and that's why they're opposed to it."
But Clyburn insisted. "What I'm hearing is not just out of fear. They're improving under the laws we've given them," he said.
"Yeah, they're improving," Hinson answered.
Cotty reminded committee members of the assessment by former Rep. Rick Quinn of last year's voucher proposal in the committee -- an assessment offered in a fit of candor. "This is as important a matter as any of you have dealt with in all your years here," he said. "You can call it a scholarship, you can call it a tax credit, you can call it a vampire draining the blood out of public education. But we're back to what Rick Quinn said a year ago: Yes, it's a voucher bill. The message we will send is that we've given up on public education. The truth is, that message is so dangerous that to let it out of here is wrong."
Cobb-Hunter questioned Hinson on transportation funding (the proposal includes none), the criteria for voucher eligibility (lower- to middle-class students qualify for vouchers, wealthy parents qualify for tax credits) and the difference between the amount of a proposed voucher and the actual cost of private tuition. "It could be very close," Hinson replied. "Tuition will differ."
Hearing Hinson's responses, Cobb-Hunter sharpened her judgment to a fine point. "I'm concerned about all the cosmetics in this amendment; you're just trying to dress this thing up, and I'm hearing and feeling that. Regardless of what change we make, we're still talking about abandoning the public schools system."
Urging his colleagues to approve passage of the bill from committee, "then vote your conscience on the floor," Vaughn revealed that his public school experience ended when he dropped out of school as a sophomore and joined the military. He later earned a GED and used the G.I. bill to enroll briefly at Furman University. "The G.I. bill is a voucher," he declared. "Voucher is not a dirty word."
Taylor noted that Hinson's amendment would allow parents who received a voucher and/or tax credit one year would be eligible for the voucher and/or tax credit for the remainder of the student's years of K-12 education, even if their financial circumstances or location changed. He asked why.
"The idea is continuity," Hinson answered. "The child makes friendships, relationships, and you want them to have continuity."
Edge supported Hinson and noted that "adminstrators are generally for the status quo and oppose change."
Kennedy, an African-American legislator, cast his own interpretation of the voucher plan as a re-segregation plan.
"My nose bleeds for you, Mr. Vaughn, but I came up on another side of the street: separate but equal," he said. "The first time I saw a school bus was in 1954 after Mr. Delaine filed a lawsuit and joined the Brown v. Board of Education case. That was 50 years ago, and after all this, we're headed right back.
"All these people they brought from Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. -- they don't know what happened in South Carolina," Kennedy continued. "South Carolina has never lived up to its responsibility to public schools. In Williamsburg County, we graduate hundreds of students and they leave to teach in Greenville County, York County -- you know why? Because your economic base is greater. You can afford the best and the brightest. You had no problems in school; you didn't see what I saw."
"I hope we will send all these people from outside South Carolina -- come to sell us this voucher bill -- back home to get a real job," he declared. "This whole thing is a big farce. They talk about Milwaukee, but tell me this: Why didn't the whole state of Wisconsin take this voucher plan? Evidently, there's something they know that we don't. People from outside our state brough a bad bill and a bag of money down here. All this is is another move to resegregate schools."
Cobb-Hunter returned, in her questioning, to the issue of accountability and asked Hinson why the plan doesn't require private or parochial schools to administer the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT). Hinson replied, "We don't want to put additional responsibility on them to change what is obviously successful."
Concerned that the bill didn't require private and parochial schools to take all comers, as public schools do, Cobb-Hunter asked whether the bill allowed private schools a "right of refusal. They're very selective, shall we say, in who they admit."
"No, the school has the authority to approve or disapprove an applicant based on their own criteria," Hinson said. "I don't think we can force a private school to participate, but that's my opinion."
"I'm getting all warm and fuzzy about the concern I'm hearing around this table for poor people, " Cobb-Hunter went on. "But there's nothing in this amendment that's going to help poor people. Rhetoric and reality are two different things. You can talk about choice all night but we need to be clear that we're providing a benefit to people with means. It's not about black or white; the most important color in America is green -- it's about money. If you're poor, you catch hell no matter what color you are." Clyburn urged the committee to reject the message the bill sends to educators. "We have teachers, administrators who have given thousands of hours, working hard to improve, and all I hear is how they're failing. What do we say to our educators? And they're all against this bill."
Cotty moved to "continue" the amendment, which would postpone consideration of the amendment AND the bill to NEXT year's legislative session. On a roll call vote, the motion failed 11-10.
Cotty then moved to table the amendment, but that vote failed with an 11-11 tie. The vote to approve the amendment ALSO failed with an 11-11 tie.
Taylor's amendment to reduce Sanford's plan to a pilot program in two districts won by 13-9.
An amendment to cap contributions to voucher-granting organizations at $10,000 per person/corporation per year was approved on a voice vote, as did Rice's amendment to hold firefighters harmless from loss of revenue from the insurance premium tax credit, and Cobb-Hunter's amendment guaranteeing a credit against contributions to public schools.
Cobb-Hunter and Vaughn tangled twice more over amendments allowing the Department of Education to monitor the receipts of voucher-granting organizations (tabled by a vote of 14-7, though not a roll call vote) and requiring private and parochial schools to conform to the Education Accountability Act of 1998.
At Cobb-Hunter's explanation of this proposal, Vaughn immediately moved to table it. "I can't let you win this one," he told her aloud. "If you want to kill any change to school choice, you bring all these schools under regulation, and then you don't have a bill any more. Private schools aren't going to submit to regulation under state government."
"But it's okay to give them public dollars?" Cobb-Hunter asked him, without a response. "We're saying it's okay to have a double standard: One for public schools, for teacher we're busily badgering, but it's not okay for us to thinking, Heaven forbid, that a private school ought to be accountable for public dollars?"
That amendment and a final one -- requiring funding for transportation -- were each defeated 13-6, but without roll call votes.
DATELINE APRIL 27, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit www.thescea.org.
VOUCHER BILL WILL MISS CRUCIAL CROSSOVER DEADLINE
A move by Rep. Jim Merrill of Daniel Island guaranteed early this evening that Governor Mark Sanford's voucher-and-tuition-tax-credit proposal won't become law in 2005. Merrill, a co-sponsor of the bill, moved to adjourn debate on House Bill 3652 until next Tuesday, May 3. Under legislative rules, any bill that doesn't pass one chamber by May 1 is ineligible for consideration by the opposite chamber in a given year's session. Merrill's move -- precipitated in part by pressure on House leaders to avoid debate on the unpopular bill -- marks a significant victory for public education advocates, who have organized in unprecedented coalitions to defeat the Sanford plan.
The delay also punctuates another milestone in The SCEA's three-year campaign against vouchers, which was inaugurated with television advertisements in 2002 and has continued through ongoing billboard and radio advertisements. In the past month, more than 125 active and retired members of The SCEA have participated in a series of four lobby days at the Capitol; more than 50 members of The SCEA-Retired traveled to Columbia today to lobby against the bill and to witness the anticipated -- but delayed -- debate.
In addition, The SCEA members and others statewide have delivered thousands of emails and telephone calls to House members, and they gathered more than 3,000 signatures on anti-voucher petitions in February and March. The petitions were delivered to members of the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Capital Investment and Other Taxes, chaired by Rep. Shirley Hinson of Goose Creek, earlier this month but had little impact on Hinson, Rep. Chip Limehouse of Charleston and Rep. Jim McGee of Florence, who voted to approve the bill over educators' concerns.
But Merrill's delay isn't a permanent defeat for the bill. Depending on the scheduling of committee meetings on Tuesday, the House could begin to debate the Sanford plan on that day or on Wednesday. The SCEA President Sheila C. Gallagher continues to urge The SCEA members to contact their members of the House tonight and through the weekend, encouraging them to oppose the bill and all amendments to it, without exception.
The present version of the Sanford plan narrows the statewide voucher program to two districts, to be identified by the Department of Education using House-drafted criteria. But an amendment is circulating which would revise the bill further, transforming it into a straightforward voucher-without-tuition-tax-credits plan. A fiscal impact statement drafted by the Board of Economic Advisors has indicated that the amendment would carry a price tag of more than $500 million dollars, twice the amount of the original version of Sanford's plan.
