A friend emailed this morning:? ?Breathtaking."? It was the first of many such emails and phone calls.
They were all referring to our board of education's vote last night (a board I am a member of) to impose a school budget that raises the local property tax levy by 9.8 percent (triple the New York state average) and, by the way, a budget that was soundly rejected ? by a 3 to 1 margin of 18% of registered voters ? at the polls on May 17. As I wrote then, the board overruled the popular will just minutes after the results were in because ? well, because it could (see the ?contingency? law below), 4 to 3. Aside from getting the Tin Ear award for politically dumb moves (the gang of four might have waited a respectable few days, at least, before rubbing their power in the voters' noses), the rush to tyranny revealed a great deal about the board's isolation from its community, not to mention a deafness to some harsh economic realities (it is a poor community with average family income of just over $30,000, and an unemployment rate of about 9 percent). Needless to say, the community roared back, packing the high school cafeteria a few days later, forcing one of the four to change his mind and the board to rescind its previous vote and promise to go back to the drawing board. As I wrote last week, Round 2 had gone to ?the people.? Well, the fight ended abruptly last night with a TKO: despite a flurry of budget workshops and hundreds of suggestions for cutting expenses and increasing revenue, to improve the rejected budget, the board, 4 to 3 (someone else changed her mind), reimposed that same rejected budget.? Not a penny changed.
Breathtaking.
There are several lessons here -- the need to abolish school boards is not one of them.
1. People change their minds. The U.S. Congress has nothing over local political skirmishes when it comes to sharp-elbowed tactics. And need it be said?? The lower the stakes, the bloodier the conflict.? The silver lining: board meeting attendance spiked.
2. Anyone thinking about centralized control ? federal or state ? should walk a mile in my shoes.? Or any of our students' or teachers' or voters' shoes for that matter. The variety of possible interactions in this tiny place should give any distant policymaker pause.? (See Mike's brilliant Less Fed in Your Ed essay here.)
3. Get the unions out of the schools. With 80 percent of our teachers living outside the district, they had no stake in the property tax levy question (in fact, in the districts where they actually lived and voted, the tax levy increases were mostly in the 1-3 percent hike range), which was bad enough. The bigger problem is the statutory protections they enjoy in the aptly named Empire State.? Between the contingency law and the so-called ?Triborough Amendment? (see below) teachers are all but guaranteed salary increases in perpetuity.
Yes, as I looked out at the audience of mostly teachers last night, they very much looked like an army of occupation.? And it's worth a second to review? the enabling legislation.
1.? The contingency law is pretty straightforward, despite the jargon, which I leave in for flavor (emphasis added):
If the qualified voters shall neglect or refuse to? vote? the sum? estimated? necessary for teachers' salaries, after applying thereto ?the public school moneys, and other moneys received or? to? be? received? for? that? purpose,? or? if they shall neglect or refuse to vote the sum? estimated necessary for? ordinary? contingent? expenses,? including? the? purchase ?of? library books and other instructional materials associated? with a library and expenses incurred for? interschool? athletics,? field? trips?? and? other? extracurricular? activities? and? the? expenses? for cafeteria or restaurant services, the sole trustee, board? of? trustees, ??or? board? of? education shall adopt a contingency budget including such expenses and shall levy a tax for the same, ?.
Tea party, anyone?
2. The Triborough Amendment has similar entitlement provisions for teachers. This, from an anti-tax group, is a pretty fair description:
The 1982 Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law prohibits a public employer from altering any provision of an expired labor agreement until a new agreement is reached. This amendment, which was originally approved with the strong support of unions, has the effect of requiring automatic pay increases where a salary step schedule or longevity schedule exists, even though the labor agreement has expired. Consequently, a public employer's salary costs continue to rise even when labor negotiations have reached an impasse.
How we got from a state constitution requiring that the legislature ?provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children? of this state may be educated? to laws taking away the right of citizens to determine what they spends for that "free" education is a long and hard legal and policy road.? I know this, here in the trenches, the events of the past couple of weeks have been enough to take your democratic breath away.
--Peter Meyer, Bernard Lee Schwartz Policy Fellow
