DATELINE MARCH 3, 2003
FURLOUGH DEBATE CONTINUES TUESDAY: CALL LAWMAKERS NOW
Debate on S375, Rep. Ronnie Townsend’s proposal to allow the furlough of teachers and other school district employees, is set to continue tomorrow. While The SCEA supported a Senate compromise agreement, that agreement was replaced on Thursday with language similar to the original House draft.
The Senate compromise agreement would have guaranteed that before any school-level educators and employees were furloughed, all district-level administrators and staff would be furloughed a full five days. The compromise would give budget decision-makers at the district level an incentive to ensure that all spending flexibility had been exercised before recommending any furloughs to the local school board.
Lawmakers continue to note that The SCEA is the sole education organization opposing the original bill to furlough teachers and other educators.
As noted last week, The SCEA discussed its position at length in a meeting with representatives of the state’s other education organizations, but the groups voted 8-2 to support the original House plan. The SCEA and the state PTA were the only opponents; supporters included the S.C. Association of School Administrators, the S.C. School Boards Association, the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Palmetto St. Teacher Association and representatives of four regional district consortia.
PATTERSON TO PROPOSE AT-WILL AMENDMENT
Sen. Kay Patterson has drafted an amendment to H3448 that would protect non-classified public school employees from an aggressive at-will employment measure now under debate in the Senate.
Patterson has worked with The SCEA to draft the amendment, which ensures that employment status and rights published in district employment handbooks will be preserved. As written, H3448 would establish that policies published in employment handbooks would have no meaning under law, and they could not be used to defend an employee from frivolous, arbitrary and capricious job actions taken against them.
Debate on the bill will continue tomorrow.
SCHEDULE TIME WITH GOVERNOR SANFORD
Beginning last month, Governor Mark Sanford is making good on his promise to be available to South Carolina residents who want his attention. Sanford’s office has begun scheduling brief visits during his “Open Door at Four” program on Wednesdays. Although the visits are not individually long – reports of five- to ten-minute chats have been heard so far – they offer new access to regular South Carolinians.
Because education is the state’s largest budget expense and the concerns of educators and public schools are often a priority on the minds of voters, President Jan McCarthy urges The SCEA members to contact the Governor’s Office at (803) 734-2100 to schedule time to discuss these matters with the chief executive.
DATELINEMARCH 4, 2003 Addendum
HOUSE AMENDS, ADOPTS FURLOUGH BILL
An amendment proposed by Rep. Harry Ott and adopted by the House this afternoon establishes the possibility of a 10-day furlough for district administrators and a five-day furlough for school-level educators and employees, but it grants complete flexibility to local school boards to implement such furloughs.
While it kept some elements of the Senate compromise agreement, the Ott amendment differed in one important way: The Senate guaranteed that administrators would be furloughed a full five days before school-level educators and employees. Under the Ott amendment, a local school board can choose to furlough only administrators, or only school-level employees, concurrently or otherwise, as it chooses.
“This is called flexibility,” Ott told the chamber. “That’s all I’ve heard in this debate, ‘We want to give local boards flexibility’.”
In support of Ott’s amendment, Rep. Bob Walker quoted a teacher from the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind. The school’s faculty, Walker reported, voted recently to give itself a five-day furlough during its scheduled spring break. Walker quoted one teacher’s comments on the vote, noting that “the education of our children is more important than our salaries”.
Following that ringing endorsement, the House passed the Ott amendment by voice vote, then adopted the amended S375 by a vote of 109 to 2. Rep. James Smith and Rep. Bessie Moody-Lawrence opposed the measure on the principle that it does nothing to address the essential need for education funding.
“Last year, in a budget deficit, we found $500,000 for economic development. I don’t believe we’ve done all we need to do to properly fund our public schools,” Smith said.
After some days of stop-and-start debate, S375 may pass third reading on Wednesday without fanfare. Because the adopted bills of the House and Senate are is disagreement, however, the bill will be referred to a conference committee – a small group of House members and Senators – to draft a consensus version of the measure. That version will be sent back to both houses for concurrence.
The full text of the amended bill may be read at http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess115_2003-2004/bills/375.htm
PATTERSON AMENDMENT PROTECTS NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
An amendment drafted by Sen. Kay Patterson to protect some rights of non-classified employees of public schools and school districts was approved unanimously by the full Senate late this afternoon. The SCEA worked with Patterson to amend H 3448, an aggressive bill strengthening the state’s at-will employment statutes.
Bowing to the state’s chamber of commerce and business interests, the original bill text declared that no employee handbook issued by any employer could be used to defend an employee who was the victim of arbitrary and capricious job actions. While certified educators and other state employees are covered by certain fair employment and dismissal statutes, the only employment rights extended to non-classified employees are those adopted by individual school districts and published in employee handbooks.
In order to preserve the quality of those rights, Patterson’s amendment reads as follows: “Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of employees of any school or school district who are not already covered by grievance procedures adopted and implemented by the district board of trustees, those rights being published by that district in an employee handbook.”
The full text of the amended bill may be read athttp://www.scstatehouse.net/sess115_2003-2004/bills/3448.htm
RYBERG PEDDLES BILL TO EXTEND SCHOOL YEAR
Sen. Greg Ryberg distributed to Senators this afternoon a draft bill that seeks to extend the school year for teachers by ten days without increasing teacher salaries by a commensurate amount. Ryberg’s bill has not yet been introduced.
The SCEA was shown a copy of the bill, titled, “A bill… to provide that beginning with the school year 2003-04, the statutory school term is two hundred days annually and five of these days must be used as make-up days for a school in the district closed due to snow, extreme weather conditions, or other disruptions in order to meet the mandatory one hundred-eighty days of student instruction”.
Ryberg’s proposal is highly proscriptive. Its text allows that a “district may excuse any of the five make-up days that are not necessary to meet the one hundred-eighty days of student instructional requirement.”
[This may be interpreted to mean that if Spartanburg County loses five days due to inclement weather, an additional five days are built into the calendar specifically to be used in making up the lost time, but educators likely would not be paid for those days. Conversely, if Charleston County districts did not miss school due to inclement weather, its administrators could “excuse” the five designated make-up days, sending educators home. In either case, educators would not be compensated for the additional five days.]
Further, Ryberg designates that nine of the remaining days would be used for professional development, and another six would be used for academic planning or parent conferences.
DATELINE MARCH 5, 2003
DIABETES BILL GETS FIRST SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
Some supporters and opponents of the diabetes-care bill that failed passage last session spoke at a subcommittee hearing on the same bill this afternoon. The most compelling testimony came from school nurses, who opposed the measure in favor of a different bill to fund school nurses in every public elementary school.
In its present form, the bill requires principals to designate two school employees who will serve to assist diabetic students with their daily care. This assistance might include testing blood sugar and administering injections of insulin. The SCEA opposes this measure.
For the past five months, The SCEA has worked with other organizations in the education community to draft a bill funding school nurses in every public elementary school in the state. Representatives of those associations were present this afternoon to voice support for that coalition bill and opposition to the present, narrower diabetes-care bill.
Steve Smith, a lobbyist speaking on his own behalf in support of the diabetes-care measure, gave the subcommittee an explanation of the disease, which he has suffered since birth. Although the subcommittee would hear a range of arguments opposing the bill, Smith said, the most reasonable solution to aid children with diabetes is to identify two volunteers in each school who will assume the responsibility and be trained.
Steve Hamm, an attorney and lobbyist representing the S.C. Association of School Administrators, suggested that a compromise could be reached by amending the present bill.
But a trio of school nurses – Kim Merchant of Newberry, and Amy Graves and Abby Beckford of Charleston school districts – advised the subcommittee that the issue would be best resolved by funding a school nurses in every public elementary school. School nurses bring years of medical knowledge and training that cannot be given to any school employees in a few brief trainings, they declared.
Their sentiment was echoed by Mike Fanning, director of a regional consortium of school districts in upstate South Carolina, who reminded the subcommittee that when transportation became a critical issue last year, the state did not require educators and other public school employees to drive students to school.
“Neither should the state ask educators to take on the responsibilities of nurses in administering care to children with health needs,” Fanning said. He emphasized the education community’s support for its own bill to fund school nurse positions and urged the subcommittee to consider that bill as the better alternative.
HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS PLEDGES TO PROTECT BUSINESS
Leaders of the House Republican Caucus spoke to business interests organized by the state Chamber of Commerce this morning at a downtown breakfast, and several pledged continued support to the business community. Rep. Rick Quinn, one of the event’s organizers, said the breakfast was the first in a series of events being planned this year to thank the business community for its support.
As the breakfast was a function designed to thank contributors to individual campaigns and the caucus fund, comments were partisan.
“Business is responsible for giving Republicans such a strong majority in South Carolina, probably the strongest of any state in the southeast or even the country,” said Speaker David Wilkins. “So we want to work with you and help you.”
Rep. Bobby Harrell, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, told attendees, “For the first time, education’s getting a little less money this year than it did last year. But we’ve got a serious budget deficit, and we were determined not to balance the budget on the back of the business community.”
“Republicans know who brought us to the dance, and we like to dance with the ones that brung us,” Harrell said.
Rep. Harry Cato also thanked the contributors, saying, “It’s easy to be pro-business when we know you’re helping us, giving us cover back in our districts.”
DATELINE MARCH 6, 2003
HOUSE FURLOUGH BILL REJECTED BY SENATE
The Senate rejected the House version of the flexibility-furlough bill this afternoon, sending the competing measures to a conference committee next week. Senate conferees were appointed today; they include Sen. Larry Martin, Sen. Linda Short and Sen. Harvey Peeler.
House conferees will not be identified until Tuesday at the earliest, when the House receives official notice of the Senate’s rejection.
The SCEA has advocated for the compromise agreement that its leadership brokered with Senate leaders last month. That compromise included a guarantee that before any school-level educators and employees were furloughed, all district-level administrators and staff would be furloughed a full five days. [The Senate compromise agreement may be found online at http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess115_2003-2004/prever/375_20030225.htm]
But the House changed that agreement through a series of amendments during the past two weeks. In the most recent iteration, the House gave local school boards complete flexibility regarding when and which classes of educators or employees to furlough. [The House version, including amendments, may be found online at http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess115_2003-2004/bills/375.htm]
President Jan McCarthy is drafting a letter, emphasizing the association’s position, that will be sent to members of the conference committee.
RYBERG SCHOOL-YEAR BILL INTRODUCED
Sen. Greg Ryberg’s bill to extend the length of the statutory school year to 200 days was introduced and referred to the Senate Education Committee yesterday. It is co-sponsored by Sen. Scott Richardson, Sen. Mike Fair, Sen. Chauncey Gregory, Sen. Danny Verdin, Sen. Jim Ritchie and Sen. Robert Waldrep. The text of S452 may be found at http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess115_2003-2004/bills/452.htm
As reported to The SCEA members earlier this week, Ryberg’s bill clearly states in the bill title and bill text that the length of the statutory school year will be extended to 200 days. But the bill makes no reference to funding for an extension of the school calendar or teacher contracts.
The SCEA spoke with a staff aide to Ryberg this afternoon and was advised that it is not the Senator’s intent to lengthen the statutory school year or teacher contracts, despite the language of the bill’s title and text. Rather, it is his intent to implement a statewide solution to what is presently a local problem: requests by some local school boards to have excused a number of school days lost due to inclement weather.
It is the Senator’s intent, said John Deworkin, to prevent the excuse of any school days lost due to inclement weather. Presently, local school boards may ask legislative delegations to approve the excuse of such days, which legislative delegations have the authority to do.
We advised Deworkin that, because the bill’s title and text clearly communicate an intent that may not reflect the Senator’s stated intent, some changes in language might be in order.
The SCEA will continue to oppose efforts to extend the statutory school year and teacher contracts, particularly when lawmakers find state resources insufficient to fund the current statutory school year and teacher contracts, and especially when these efforts are not accompanied by funding for such extensions.
TERI QUESTIONS MAY BE ANSWERED, MAYBE NOT
S382, a bill by Sen. Ryberg to repeal the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive (TERI) program, has still not yet been scheduled for hearing by the Senate Finance Committee, the committee to which the bill has been referred. But The SCEA made inquiries of the Senator’s staff on the repeal bill this afternoon.
John Deworkin told the association that, based on the Senator’s reading of actuarial reports, the TERI program presently costs the state $1.05 for every dollar the program realizes as income, because of benefits paid to retirees and TERI participants.
While the earliest actuarial data projected interest earnings of seven percent annually, Deworkin said, the state realized interest earnings of slightly more than one percent in the most recent year for which there is complete data.
In addition, the program and its 10,000-plus participants have so increased that state’s unfunded liability that actuarial consultants have extended the state’s liability period from 15 years to more than 20 years.
These premises lead the Senator to believe that South Carolina is hemorrhaging resources through the TERI program, and that it is imperative to repeal the TERI program in order to prevent participation by more teachers and state employees and, thus, to bring the state’s fiscal house back into shape.
Deworkin added that many teachers and state employees have called the Senator’s office to ask if they will be grandfathered into the program if their signed documentation is already being processed by the retirement system, though they are not yet participants in the TERI program. Until this week, he said, the Senator has believed that these not-yet-participants would be grandfathered into the program. But his office has received three different responses to the same direct question from various state sources this week.
Deworkin said that he anticipates learning a definitive answer to the question from state legislative staff on Friday morning.
S382 may be found online at http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess115_2003-2004/bills/382.htm
DATELINE MARCH 11, 2003
BUDGET DEBATE BEGINS, ED UNDERFUNDED $240 MILLION
Debate on the 2003-04 budget began today in the House and, despite several proposed amendments, public education is underfunded by $240 million. H3749 comprises the annual budget for all state agencies, institutions and services.
Rep. James Smith moved twice during the day to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee, arguing that it underfunds the state’s greatest obligation. On both occasions, however, Smith’s motions were sidetracked by motions to table by Rep. Bobby Harrell, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee; Harrell’s motions were successful both times.
Arguments were sometimes tinged with partisan bickering. But throughout today’s discussion, opponents of public education funding successfully kept the discussion narrowed to scenarios of “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. No amendments to raise revenues were addressed, and mentions of raising additional revenues were swatted down by House leaders.
WALKER AMENDMENT CUTS SUPPLIES, BOOSTS STUDENT SPENDING
An amendment by Rep. Bob Walker to cut $10 million designated for teacher supplies, and to transfers the funding to the Education Finance Act, drew the longest volley of debate of the day. Walker argued that the state’s base student cost, now at $1,749 per pupil (down from $2,033 in the 2002-03 budget), will drop to $1,643 per pupil in the 2003-04 fiscal year. Transferring these funds would aid in preventing additional reductions in that figure.
Walker couched the proposal as an either-or proposition, saying that funding was not available for both items. As the husband of a retired teacher, Walker said teachers would rather preserve teaching positions than protect supply money, and protecting supply money would likely lead to a loss in teaching positions in many districts. When pressed on the point, Walker admitted that he couldn’t guarantee that positions wouldn’t be lost if his amendment passed, and that he couldn’t guarantee that all positions would be wholly preserved in either case.
Walker was questioned by legislators who opposed the either-or proposition, but he stood firm against raising additional revenues. “ Money will not solve the problem,” he said, leading to a sharp exchange with Rep. Ken Kennedy.
“You kept a straight face throughout your explanation of this amendment,” Kennedy said. “After all the cuts to teachers already, you want to cut their supplies too?”
“We’re killing our education department with this budget, Mr. Kennedy,” Walker countered. “We’re robbing the base student cost with this budget.”
“Yes, we’re destroying our schools,” Kennedy agreed. “Will you join us in raising sales taxes by two cents?”
“I’m not going to raise taxes,” Walker declared. “We’ve got to make a choice: Do you want supplies or do you want teachers in the classroom?”
Several representatives characterized the proposal in similar, critical terms. Rep. Ted Pitts called it “a tax on teachers”. Rep. James Clyburn suggested, “It doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition. You’re asking teachers, Would you rather be shot or be poisoned? That’s not a choice.”
Rep. Bessie Moody-Lawrence took to the podium, questioning Walker’s expertise on the issue and decrying the “shell game” being played by the House leadership.
“Rep. Walker is married to a retired teacher, so he must be an authority on cutting these funds,” Moody-Lawrence said. “Now we’re playing a shell game; we’re creating fear. Are we losing our minds here? Are we mentally ill? One of our priorities ought to be K-12 education. We ought to look at lottery funds are being spent, and fully fund public education. Come to your senses! Come to your sense, fellow legislators! This is a shame! This is a national disgrace!”
Rep. Harry Ott lamented the dilemma but spoke in favor of Walker’s amendment. “We are under-funding public education by $240 million based on last year’s budget,” he said. “That leaves us with two options: ask local districts to fire 6,200 teachers, or ask county councils to raise property taxes. We’ve got to do some hard thinking and make a hard choice.”
Rep. Joe Neal lectured the House from the perspective of his past five terms in the body. “In 10 years, I’ve never seen the House cut the base student cost,” he said. “You’re going to have to go back and explain how, under your watch, the base student cost got cut for the first time. This is about priorities.”
Neal decried the House’s “sacred cows”, including the endowment of research chairs at three state universities, reflecting an investment of $30 million in the proposed budget.
“The question is, Do we have the backbone to stand up and do what we need to do to fully fund public education?” Neal said. “It’s a shame to lay off teachers. It’s a shame to cut classroom supplies. It’s a shame and a disgrace that we pretend that we don’t have the money.”
Rep. James E. Smith showed charts illustrating the dramatic decrease in base student cost over the past year, after a decade of gains, and illustrating the continuing climb in various categories of education costs. He moved to recommit the budget to committee, but his motion was successfully tabled by Rep. Bobby Harrell.
Rep. Thomas Rhoad won the only applause of the day when he rose to declare, “You can go to college, you can go to school, but without common sense, you’re an educated fool.” Rhoad pointed out that he has no formal education, a note that drew – as it often draws – applause from the chamber.
On that note, Rep. Harrell moved to table Walker’s amendment, and was successful.
SCIENCE & MATH WINS; FIRST STEPS AND DE LA HOWE LOSE
An amendment by Rep. Gary Simrill to give an additional $150,000 to the Governor’s School of Science and Math was approved by a majority, but amendments by Rep. James E. Smith and Rep. Julia Parks to restore deep cuts to First Steps and the John De La Howe School were defeated.
Smith sought to give an additional $500,000 to the early childhood program.
Parks first sought to transfer $150,000 in funds from the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind to the John De La Howe School, the third largest employer in McCormick County. But, with the transfer request defeated, she returned with simple funding requests of $150,000, then $100,000, then $50,000. Each was successfully tabled by Rep. Bobby Harrell or Rep. Teddy Trotter.
AMENDMENT WOULD WREST SEX-ED CONTROL FROM GOVERNOR
An amendment by Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter would have deleted a proviso requiring Governor Mark Sanford’s approval for any federal grants from the Centers for Disease Control for the purpose of sex education in public schools.
“I know all of y’all are on the reservation and you’re going to toe the party line,” Cobb-Hunter said. “But this is the worst kind of micro-managing. I don’t want my governor’s office giving precious time to these matters when we have such budget deficits and funding cuts. I guess we’ve got a sex-ed czar down there who’ll be looking after every sex-ed grant.”
Debate on Cobb-Hunter’s amendment was adjourned without a vote.
FUNDING DELETED FOR MAILING REPORT CARDS, SURVEYS
Two amendments by Rep. Herb Kirsh were adopted by the House, deleting funding for mailing school report cards and parents surveys by school districts. Kirsh argued that children could be relied on to deliver school report cards and parent surveys, saving the state an estimated $400,000.
DATELINE MARCH 12, 2003
PUBLIC ED SUFFERS HELLISH DAY IN HOUSE
Amendments designed to cut funding from public education drew fire during debate on the House budget draft this morning, with Rep. James Smith of Richland County repeatedly leading spirited but futile debate to fully fund public schools.
One proviso in the House budget draft absolves local school districts from their obligation to meet the funding match in present Education Finance Act funding formulas. Under current statute, local districts bear a burden to provide 30 percent of public education funding, with the state providing the remaining 70 percent. Smith proposed an amendment to strike that proviso, arguing that it further erodes funding to public schools.
“My amendment sends that message that if we’re going to cut funding, we will set minimum standards and we won’t go below those standards,” Smith said. “We ought to be better than minimum. We can have a first-rate education system in this state, I believe it.”
“We’re telling our districts to be accountable, to create excellence. At the same time, we’re cutting the funds they need to deliver the service,” Smith added.
At one point in the debate on Smith’s amendment, Rep. Vida O. Miller asked him, “Are we setting these schools up for failure? And if so, who’s going to be accountable?”
“Accountability rests with the members of this body,” Smith replied. “Every two years, we all go out and campaign for office saying that we support public education. But if this proviso is allowed to pass, all those pontifications will be a total lie. There ought to be some outrage about that. What kind of leaders are we going to be? Where are our leaders who support public schools and who fight for our children?”
Rep. Ronny Townsend and Rep. Bobby Harrell argued in favor of the proviso to eliminate local obligations, saying that local districts may have to raise property taxes if the obligation remains.
Rep. Roland Smith moved to table James Smith’s amendment, and the motion passed 66-33.
FURLOUGH BILL ADDED TO BUDGET, EXTENDED TO NEXT YEAR
Rep. Daniel Cooper proposed an amendment that copies into the budget bill the text of the adopted House bill allowing furloughs, with one small change. While the competing versions of the House and Senate furlough bills – now sitting in a conference committee – apply only to the current school year, Cooper’s amendment to the House budget extends the furlough authority to next fiscal year as well.
Cooper’s amendment allows local school districts to furlough any employees (or groups of employees) at any time once funding certification has been filed with the Department of Education. While school-level employees may be furloughed for up to five days and district-level employees up to 10 days, boards are not bound to furlough any employees or groups of employees at the same time, on the same date.
His amendment passed on a voice vote.
NATIONAL BOARD APPLICATION FEES ATTACKED, SURVIVE
An amendment by Rep. Bob Walker would have eliminated state funding for application fees for national board certification. Currently, the state funds the $2,300 fee, partly as a grant and partly as a loan that is forgiven when applicants successfully complete the certification process.
Walker argued, “They’ll pay for it on their own just like everyone else does. We don’t do this for master’s degrees or for doctors.” An estimated $4.5 million would be saved, he said.
Rep. Joel Lourie spoke in opposition: “I appreciate all you’re doing to fund the EFA formula, but I don’t want to discourage people who want to become NBC applicants. We’re discouraging people who want to become NBC certified.”
“Those who really want to go after it will go after it,” Walker countered. “We’re not discouraging teachers who really want to do it.”
Rep. Ken Kennedy brought the debate back to the larger question of school funding. “What we’re doing here is gutting our education system,” he said. “Everybody’s talking about cutting this, cutting that, but not one person is talking about finding the money to save our public education system.”
Kennedy moved to table Walker’s amendment, and the motion passed 98-10.
PACT TESTING DELAY DEFEATED
Rep. Jackie Hayes proposed an amendment to delay for one year the implementation of PACT testing in social studies, saving the state $2.3 million. But Rep. Harrell immediately moved to table the amendment, and the motion passed on a voice vote.
CLASS SIZE AMENDMENT DEFEATED, McCARTHY QUOTED
Rep. James Smith returned with an amendment holding the state to its own standards of class size reduction, which are higher than federal standards. The House budget draft includes a proviso seeking to abandon the state’s class size reduction statutes for federal requirements set by the Bush Administration’s “No Child Left Behind”.
“This proviso is yet another step backwards in public education,” Smith said. “South Carolina has a much higher standard, and now we’re saying we’re going to go backwards to the standard set by NCLB. That federal law, ‘No Child Left Behind’, makes a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind’. It’s a book full of words that sound great but offer no support.”
“We ought to be doing everything we can do to lower class size,” he argued. “We are absolutely sending the wrong message.”
Rep. Vida Miller echoed Smith’s sentiments, quoting The SCEA President Jan McCarthy and an article in the February-March issue of The SCEA EMPHASIS.
“Politics trumps public service as classrooms suffer more cuts,” Miller read. “That sends a real strong message to me.”
Quoting McCarthy’s comments in the magazine’s cover story, Miller recited, “Our members made a commitment to raise student achievement and improve teacher quality. State leaders demanded accountability from us, and we’ve made extraordinary progress. The burden now rests with those state leaders to show themselves accountable. At the end of the day, does their word mean anything?”
Smith agreed with Miller and McCarthy, and asked lawmakers, “What reason do you have to vote to increase class sizes? Why? We’ve set standards and accountability but we aren’t giving them the tools to meet it.”
Addressing the House’s apathy toward funding for schools, Smith added, “I get the real sense that folks just don’t like hearing this stuff. It’s a disgrace, an absolute disgrace, and we have the power to change it..
“We can fix this problem and have simply refused to do so,” agreed Rep. Todd Rutherford. “Instead, we’re shepherding teachers and children into an abyss.”
Referring to the budget bill’s sponsors and majority leaders, Smith declared, “They haven’t even attempted to defend this budget. You know why? Because they have the votes. All I’ve got is my 20 minutes, and then we’ll vote.”
With that, Smith’s time at the podium expired and Rep. Roland Smith moved to table James Smith’s amendment. It was tabled by a vote of 64-39.
Debate on the budget was adjourned until after lunch.
DATELINE MARCH 13, 2003
BUDGET DEBATE LEAVES PUBLIC ED FUNDING
The House continued debate on H3479, its budget draft, but the chamber’s focus moved beyond public education today and on to other state agencies. Debate reconvened at 9:30 a.m. and, excluding a 90-minute break for lunch, continued through presstime this evening.
President Jan McCarthy encourages The SCEA members to email our thanks to Rep. James Smith, Rep. Bessie Moody-Lawrence, Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Rep. Vida O. Miller and Rep. Ken Kennedy for their steadfast support for public education funding during Wednesday’s debate. Email addresses for these representatives may be found at http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/houseemail.html
LOTTERY SALES TAX DEBATED, RULED OUT OF ORDER
The House debated an amendment proposed by Rep. Greg Delleney to establish a five-cent sales tax on lottery tickets. Delleney explained that his amendment would generate an estimated $30 million, which might be targeted to the Education Finance Act and benefit the base student cost.
House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell moved to table Delleney’s amendment but, surprisingly, Harrell’s motion failed by a 44-70 vote. With the amendment before the body, Harrell argued vehemently against the amendment, saying that it would depress ticket sales and force a revision of lottery proceed projections in the House budget draft. Ultimately, Harrell said, the state might realize no greater result than the lottery presently yields.
“I believe we’re about to delve into a pretty serious lottery fight,” Harrell said. “If we added a nickel to the cost of a lottery ticket, we’d be the only state in the country with a dollar-and-five-cent lottery ticket.”
Rep. Bob Walker, hoarse after vigorous participation in two days of debate, supported the amendment. “When we come back here next year, the same number of tickets will be sold,” he said.
But Harrell returned to ask Speaker David Wilkins to consider a new argument: that intangibles cannot be taxed under South Carolina law. Lottery tickets, he argued, are considered intangibles and not subject to a sales tax
“What’s the difference between a football ticket, a theater ticket and a lottery ticket?” Walker asked. “You charge a sales tax on the other tickets.”
“Valid point. I agree,” Wilkins conceded. But after consideration, Wilkins upheld Harrell’s point of order. “If the law says we cannot apply a sales tax to an intangible, that’s the law I’ve got to go by.”
Rep. Marty Coates argued that a lottery ticket is indeed tangible, since the theft of lottery tickets would be considered the theft of tangible goods.
After nearly 45 minutes of debate, Wilkins ruled the amendment out of order, saying that it violated state law regarding sales tax of intangibles.
NEWSPRINT EXEMPTION DEBATED, DEFEATED
Rep. Becky Richardson proposed an amendment to repeal the tax exemption on newsprint, estimated to realize $3 million, which she designated for the purchase of school buses.
“We pay taxes on food, on clothes – why do we exempt newsprint?” Richardson asked. “I’ve told you how desperately we need school buses. In 2002, we spent almost $3 million maintaining our current fleet. That makes no sense. It’s time to step up to the plate.”
Rep. Bill Cotty moved to table the amendment, and his motion passed by a vote of 93-12.
EDITORIAL ANALYSIS ON ED FUNDING
As described in the February-March issue of The SCEA EMPHASIS, funding for public education has taken a sharp decline since December, when the state Budget and Control Board voted to cut almost $100 million from the budget for schools. The same board returned in February and took another $68 million from education funding.
Taking into account these cuts, additional reductions by the House Ways and Means Committee and other naturally-occurring circumstances, the House draft of the 2003-04 budget funds the education budget at a level $240 million less than was funded in the 2002-03 fiscal year.
Ask almost any lawmaker about restoring full funding to public education, and you’ll get some variation of the same two responses: Where’s the money to fund it? Or, there’s no money to fund it.
During two days of debate, House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell has driven home the instruction that no increase one line item’s appropriation would be considered without a commensurate decrease in another line item elsewhere in the budget. Harrell’s instruction makes state funding an either-or proposition: either you appropriate a dollar to one state agency or program, or you appropriate that dollar to another state agency or program.
But Harrell’s instruction ignores the legislature’s authority to raise revenues as needed to fund state obligations. Rather than making state funding an either-or proposition with the same, finite number of dollars, the legislature has full power and authority to fund all the state’s obligations adequately and equitably.
In fact, billions of dollars are readily available to South Carolina lawmakers if they choose to tap the sources. Consider the following:
-In 1996, the legislature adopted a homestead exemption that cost the treasury $129.5 million in 2002 alone.
-In 1996, the legislature adopted a residential property tax exemption that cost the treasury $266.4 million in 2002 alone.
-In 1996, the legislature adopted a merchant’s inventory tax exemption that cost the treasury $40.6 million in 2002 alone.
-In 1998, the legislature adopted a manufacturer’s depreciation reimbursement that cost the treasury $43.7 million in 2002 alone.
In all, tax cuts and rebates adopted by the legislature since 1996 has cost the treasury a cumulative total of $2.7 billion – and the sum increases by 51 percent annually. By the same authority it exercised to adopt those cuts, the legislature could repeal them and begin realizing new revenue.
Research conducted by legislative staff in the past week at the request of some lawmakers estimates that the following revenue might be realized in 2003-04 alone:
-Each one-cent increase in the state sales tax would net $542 million.
-Each eight-cent increase per pack on cigarettes would net $28.4 million.
-Each two-cent increase per gallon of gasoline would net $56 million.
-Each five-cent tax per 12 oz. bottle of beer or wine would net $54.7 million.
-Re-implementing a sales tax on carbonated beverages would net $39.3 million.
-Eliminating the sales tax cap on motor vehicles and implementing a five-percent sales tax on the total value of the vehicle would net $93.4 million.
According to the state Office of Research and Statistics, certain sales that are currently tax-exempt cost the treasury hundreds of millions of dollars:
-An exemption on sales of tangible personal property to the federal government costs the treasury $180 million annually.
-An exemption on sales of tangible personal property sold out-of-state costs the treasury $232 million annually.
These figures support the point that fully funding public education – and every other essential program and institution – in South Carolina is not a matter of revenue but a matter of will.
Lawmakers can choose to preserve the state’s chief obligation when they so desire – and fully fund our schools.
