Battle looms over repeal of two-vote requirementBy Nancy Remsen
Published February 22nd 2008 in Burlington Free Press
"We ought to respect the work of school boards. It seems condescending and disrespectful to say that they ought to think twice."
MONTPELIER -- When Rep. Christopher Pearson, P-Burlington, offered an amendment Thursday to repeal the most significant school budget cost-containment provision enacted by the Legislature last spring -- it stopped a technical corrections bill in its tracks.
Pearson opposes what is called the "two-vote" requirement, which surfaced in the final hours of the last legislative session. Thursday he saw a chance to try to remove the provision, which he described "as an insult to local control."
House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, preferred to give the House Education Committee time to wrap up its deliberations on the repeal question before the full House debated the issue. As a result, lawmakers agreed to put off for a week their consideration of the technical fix bill and Pearson's repeal amendment.
"The debate is going to happen," said House Education Chairwoman Janet Ancel, D-Calais. "We just want it to happen when all the options are out there."
The education panel is weighing whether to offer a different cost-cutting measure -- the one the House passed last year. It would put more teeth into an existing financial penalty paid by the highest spending school districts. Districts trigger a financial penalty if they spend 125 percent or more of the previous year's statewide average per pupil. The House wanted to lower the threshold to 123 percent in 2009 and to 120 percent in 2012.
In last-minute negotiations in the final hours before adjournment in 2007, the Douglas administration and leaders from the House and Senate came up with a political compromise intended to put some brakes on the growth in school spending. The two-vote provision won approval but now faces fierce opposition from Pearson and other legislators of varying political persuasions and the state teachers union and other school organizations.
The controversial provision creates an extra electoral hurdle for school districts that spend more than the statewide average per pupil and want to increase future spending at a rate higher than inflation plus one percentage point. Beginning next year, those districts must split their school budgets and seek voter approval for each part. One vote covers a spending plan that increases by inflation plus one percentage point. The second vote covers the proposed additional spending.
Rep. Christopher Bray, D-New Haven, is one of the House members pushing for repeal.
"Every school board member I know really agonizes putting a budget together," Bray said. "We ought to respect the work of school boards. It seems condescending and disrespectful to say that they ought to think twice."
Pearson opposes what is called the "two-vote" requirement, which surfaced in the final hours of the last legislative session. Thursday he saw a chance to try to remove the provision, which he described "as an insult to local control."
House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, preferred to give the House Education Committee time to wrap up its deliberations on the repeal question before the full House debated the issue. As a result, lawmakers agreed to put off for a week their consideration of the technical fix bill and Pearson's repeal amendment.
"The debate is going to happen," said House Education Chairwoman Janet Ancel, D-Calais. "We just want it to happen when all the options are out there."
The education panel is weighing whether to offer a different cost-cutting measure -- the one the House passed last year. It would put more teeth into an existing financial penalty paid by the highest spending school districts. Districts trigger a financial penalty if they spend 125 percent or more of the previous year's statewide average per pupil. The House wanted to lower the threshold to 123 percent in 2009 and to 120 percent in 2012.
In last-minute negotiations in the final hours before adjournment in 2007, the Douglas administration and leaders from the House and Senate came up with a political compromise intended to put some brakes on the growth in school spending. The two-vote provision won approval but now faces fierce opposition from Pearson and other legislators of varying political persuasions and the state teachers union and other school organizations.
The controversial provision creates an extra electoral hurdle for school districts that spend more than the statewide average per pupil and want to increase future spending at a rate higher than inflation plus one percentage point. Beginning next year, those districts must split their school budgets and seek voter approval for each part. One vote covers a spending plan that increases by inflation plus one percentage point. The second vote covers the proposed additional spending.
Rep. Christopher Bray, D-New Haven, is one of the House members pushing for repeal.
"Every school board member I know really agonizes putting a budget together," Bray said. "We ought to respect the work of school boards. It seems condescending and disrespectful to say that they ought to think twice."
