Sounds Like A Plan

The last line of defense for supporters of Act 60/68 is the challenge: “What’s your alternative?” 

Fair enough.  You can’t beat something with nothing.  So earlier this week, we published Mr. Hugh Kemper’s comprehensive and exhaustively researched proposal for reforming our present school funding apparatus.  We await news that he has been invited by Montpelier to explain his plan to those who write the laws.

And, then, yesterday, in a statehouse press conference, Representative Rick Hube and some colleagues presented another comprehensive scheme for reform.  The Freeps and the Brattleboro Reformer deemed this event newsworthy. The Herald and Times Argus, however, passed on the story (in their online versions, anyway) though they did inform readers that it was snowing outside yesterday.

Hube timed the announcement of his plan to coincide with the unveiling of a website that explains, in detail, the architecture of the plan and attempts to answer anticipated questions and reservations about it.  Unlike most policy websites, this one has an irresistibly seductive element: a feature that allows those who pay property taxes to find out how much money they would save if this plan were to become law. 

This may be the start of a dangerous trend.  Allowing voters foreknowledge of the tax consequences of legislation … imagine.

Rather than attempting a summary of Hube’s plan, we suggest you visit the website, check out what it means for your property tax bill and consider the answers to those ubiquitous FAQs.

The legislature has been in session for a month, now, and the mood in Montpelier is like that of a teenager who has gone on a mall raid while carrying a maxed-out credit card.  Our elected would like to do big things but they don’t have any money to spend.  We suggest they take up this plan -- and Mr. Kemper's -- and see if they can’t find some satisfaction in saving the taxpayers a few dollars.  Put it under the heading of “Now for Something Completely New and Different.”

This is, no doubt, a forlorn hope.  Speaker Symington doesn’t see how the legislature could possibly take up this plan in the time remaining before adjournment.  Some might suggest working later and harder but that ain’t going to happen.  Meanwhile, Governor Douglas, indicated the usual tepid “interest.” 

"Providing property tax relief this year is one of the governor's top legislative priorities, and he appreciates the emphasis that Rep. Hube and his colleagues have put on this important issue," [Douglas] spokesman, Jason Gibbs, said. "We still need to understand the details of the proposal a little better, but the principles they laid out are reasonable."

This is his default response and one of the reasons that even his supporters sometimes despair over his “leadership.”

The most conclusive, unambiguous response came, of course, from the teacher’s union. 

"... nothing but a revision, at least partially, to a constitutionally flawed system," said Joel Cook, executive director of the state teachers union -- Vermont NEA.

But then, with power comes confidence and the Vermont NEA fears no one.  If you want to understand its agenda, consider this passage from its website, declaring war on the dreaded Act 82 which allows towns two votes on school budgets:

It is clear that key legislators have heard from hundreds of educators around the state, and the unmistakable message they’ve received is how dangerous the act’s two-vote mandate is to the future of  Vermont’s excellent local public schools.

And if there were any doubt as to the real meaning of the two-vote mechanism, Gov. Douglas was crystal clear on the intent of the provision when he described it as a “commonsense cap on property tax increases.”

Whatever you are paying in property taxes now, the teachers’ union thinks that it is just fine and would be okay with more.  How else to read its opposition to a "cap on property tax increases."  Even a commonsense one.

If there has not been an alternative to the bleak arithmetic of Act 60/68 before, then there are now at least two on the table.  Question is: will Montpelier consider them or will it simply go with the quo? 

Status quo, that is.

Comments

[John Stewart]

The present property tax system is broken. I was a member of the Jericho Selectboard for several years and Jericho Town Treasurer for around five years - so I have some working knowledge of how the property tax system works. I can tell you that it is an overly complicated system to administer. Ask your legislator, ask the Speaker, when was he and or she in their respective town offices to discuss in detail how the property tax system works? How many more hours does it take them to administer this system? I also would like to know how many additional people have been hired at the state level to administeer this system.
I have not yet read the proposed LEAF Plan but I am eager to do so.
I think it is long overdue that we begin to discuss a system that people understand, a system that is able to be administered efficiently and a system that enables people who vote on school budgets to know how it impacts their own property taxes. Hopefully this is a start. Thank you Re.Hubie and others for enabling the legislature to deal with this issue.
For those who say this "dead on arrival", they are doing Vermont taxpayers a huge disservice.

[Mister Guy]

"We await news that he has been invited by Montpelier to explain his plan to those who write the laws."

How about you be a little less passive and actually ask to be heard by them? Or maybe send out a few press releases at least?

Oh great...this Hube guy looks like the same dude that I saw on TV denying that health care costs were one of the main reasons that education costs were rising while he was the House GOP Whip (when the GOP was in charge a few years ago). He's one of you guys!! LOL...too funny... Where was this plan at the beginning of the 2-year legislative session? Going back to something like we had before the VT Supreme Court case is a non-starter.

"Some might suggest working later and harder but that ain’t going to happen."

Gee, that would have been hard to do if they went for the GOP gimmick earlier that called for early adjournment huh?

[John Stewart]

I would be nice if Mister Guy got his facts right but I guess that is too much to ask. Per a report by Hugh Kemper in February 2008 the main reason current expenditures per pupil have increased (FY97 to FY06) was a 22.6% increase in staffing while enrollment declined by 9.1%. In the same report Kemper states benefits (primarily health care) grew by 8.6% between FY01 and FY06 8.6%. I don't think one can equate the cost of health care vs. the cost of salaries.
However I do agree that the costs of health care have risen rapidly, but it is not the main driver.
Finally I don't see any specifics from Mister Guy on why the Vermont LEAF Plan is a non-starter based on the Vt. Supreme Court case - more generalities and no specifics.

[Mister Guy]

I've explained before why looking at per pupil costs is a red herring...not all all school costs are unfortunately spent in the classroom.

So, 8.6%...sounds like multiple times the rate of inflation to me, which is what everyone is complaining about (and rightfully so I think).

Did you look at the plan Mr. Stewart? What I saw mostly was a plan that's basically "back to future" and short on funding details.

[SPS]

Mister Guy:
"Per pupil cost is a red herring"?

What other metric do you propose using? After all, the education system is meant to serve pupils, right?

Maybe a better metric would be to estimate the increase in cost vs the increase in test scores? After all, if spending is rising faster than inflation, we ought to be getting more value for our money and that value should be reflected.

I don't agree with everything that gets posted on this blog about education. However, I do agree that we need to have a serious discussion in this state about why cost are rising and what can be done about it.

On the LEAF proposal: I am not yet convinced. I need to understand a bit more how this might work. However, I applaud those involved for trying to come up with a more rational and equitable system for allocating education costs.

[bill brueckner]

2/7/08
Lied to, cheated and stolen from by Vermont government!
Vermont does not have a means of taxation that is constitutional.
This new tax plan is nothing but another scam by the political system that is running a wealth protection business for the richest people and the corporations. The Vermont Local Education Affordability Formula is simply another government scam.
The Brigham decision stated:
The Education Clause is also instructive in what it does not provide.
Although it requires

that a school be maintained in each town unless the Legislature permits
otherwise, it is silent on the means of their support and funding. The
Legislature has implemented the education clause by authorizing school
districts to raise revenue through local property taxes. But neither this
method, nor any other means of financing public education, is
constitutionally mandated. Public education is a constitutional obligation
of the State; funding of education through locally-imposed property taxes
is not.
Brigham decision stated:
Finally, we underscore the limited reach of our holding. Although the
Legislature should act under the Vermont Constitution to make educational
opportunity available on substantially

equal terms, the specific means of discharging this broadly defined duty is
properly left to its discretion.
The legislature never fulfilled the obligation to come up with a constitutional means of funding education. The Constitution is still silent on how to fund education. Brigham did not guarantee and education by government only an equal educational opportunity.
Act 60, "This act shall be known and may be cited as the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1997" was passed June of 1997. Based on Brigham and the following Supreme Court decision, Act 60 is unconstitutional the day it became law.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the following in docket 96-627 July of 1998
“the current property tax system, based on an appraisal of the fair market value of the property, is unconstitutional as applied because the appraisals in More town and other towns throughout the state are inaccurate resulting in disproportional taxation in violation of chapter 1, article 9 of the Vermont Constitution. He also argues that the tax system is unconstitutional on its face because it does not tax members of society based on their wealth. We affirm.”
The legislature and governors over this eleven year period have never taxed us according to the Constitution in violation of their oath of office; they have committed perjury! The legislative powers provides the legislature cannot make tax law that adds to, alters, abolish, or infringes any part of the Constitution.
This mob rule by people holding the seats of government is stealing from the people through unconstitutional tax laws while lying under oath.
You cant get justice in Vermont.

William Brueckner, 1421 Shaw Mansion Rd., Waterbury Ctr, VT 05677

[Curtis Hier]

"I've explained before why looking at per pupil costs is a red herring..."

So then what will be the constitutional problem with moving away from it as a measure of equal educational opportunity? I'm not an expert on tax policy, but Rep. Hube would still have the state collect taxes for non-residential commercial, right? And, boy, if we added school choice in, what an equal opportunity that'd be! Even our current Supreme Court couldn't deny that. But I'm really not an expert on this stuff, so anybody can feel free to correct me.

[Mister Guy]

Let's say that a school district spends $10Million this year to service their 2000 kids. Next year, they budget roughly the same amount of money to service 1750 kids. The per-public costs have gone up, but are they really spending significantly more money?

People in this state have legitimate concerns over the costs of education. They look at declining enrollment and rising costs and think to themselves and each other, "What the hell is going on here?" What a lot of them fail to understand is that in those very schools (whether those schools are seeing declining or increasing enrollment) are education professionals that are still doing their jobs and paying their bills that rise just like everyone else's bills (especially their health care and energy costs). Just because enrollment is down some doesn't mean that they can fire most of the educational staff. Any more needy kids that they have to service by law will also require more dedicated resources.

The problems of education spending and funding are not easy to solve, and going back to the past is usually not the answer. I think property taxes are a horrible way to raise revenue for anything, period.

[Mister Guy]

School choice just takes money from the public sector and funnels it to the private sector. We can't shove all of our kids into private schools. A whole lot them (especially the disabled and low-performing ones) they don't even want in the first place.

[Curtis Hier]

“Just because enrollment is down some doesn't mean that they can fire most of the educational staff.”

There are some fixed costs of, say, inclusion, but there are some opportunities to hold down variable costs too.

“I think property taxes are a horrible way to raise revenue for anything, period.”

Except that they are the most recession-proof. But, really, taxes are not my area.

[Mister Guy]

The vicious cycle in VT when it comes to property taxes happens because the housing market is so tight across a good chunk of VT (especially where all the people live) that housing prices keep going up and up. As long as we fail to grow ourselves out of this sitiution it will persist IMO. Just because someone bought a home for $100,000-something a number of years ago and now it's worth over $300,000 doesn't mean that that person's income has risen through the roof as well. I understand the frustration that people get when they keep getting a property tax bill that goes up and up while their real wages have been flat. You can only squeeze people so much before they pop, and a lot of people are popping in this state...

[Curtis Hier]

"School choice just takes money from the public sector and funnels it to the private sector. We can't shove all of our kids into private schools."

Well, I refer you back to Spaulding and Wolk. Wolk tells us that it’s a small percentage in Minnesota that participate. But it makes a big difference to those kids. I wish you’d challenge some of your beliefs a little instead of just repeating the talking points you got or the lines you’ve heard. Spaulding and Wolk are a couple of really smart Democrats.

And let me point out that we’ve been talking about public school choice, not private school vouchers. Experienced educators catch distinctions like that. Those who are merely related to them might not, I suppose.

[Mister Guy]

Another dodge...a pithy one though...