May 4 , 2009
This is a bit late, but I wanted to wait until after our Appropriations Committee meeting today (5/5). We started at 10:20 a.m., broke for lunch at 2:00 p.m., went to the floor for brief session at 2:30, resumed the committee meeting at 3:00, and adjourned at 5:20. In all, we heard the 10 bills that comprise the Republican "opening bid" for the 2010 budget. All were passed along party lines, with the Democrats voting "No" on every one. Who says Republicans are "the party of no?"
There was a bit of bipartisanship as we passed an amendment offered by freshman Democrat Matt Heinz that shortened the period after which certain assets are considered abandoned and converted to revenue for the state. The estimated one-time revenue is $49 million -- how's that for closing a $3 billion deficit! The other Democrat amendments, and there were many, all added back spending and for the most part provided no clue as to where the additional funds would come from.
All in all, we passed out of committee a balanced that was technically balanced. But as I pointed out last week, there are some "revenue enhancements" that may not pan out, including sweeping funds from school districts and from cities and towns.
We did change the concept of using impact fees now held by the cities to a voluntary contribution, in exchange for their being allowed to use funds not swept for operating expenses. The basis for this is that because of the building slowdown, impact fees are not being utilized but cities need additional funds for essential services such as fire and police protection. I have always been a champion of our cities, and I hope that ultimately we can work out an agreement that allows us to utilize these funds on a temporary basis, repaying them when our state revenues increase.
These bills contained the previously announced cuts of over $600 million to all of the state agencies and departments, including an approximate adjustment to K-12 education of $215 million. This represents a decrease in spending of 2.5% of their total budget, or 4.5% of general fund spending. We heard from person after person who decried the "decimation" of education funding in Arizona, including the Dems on our committee. One was heard to say to our education analyst that her job would be a lot easier next year. She looked puzzled, then he explained that with the massive cuts to education, there wouldn't be anything to analyze.
Last week I was presented with the following information, compiled from AZ Dept. of Education. From 2004 to 2008, student population increased 10.7%. Allowing for inflation, to keep up we should have used a factor of 19%. In fact, spending for K-12 from the general fund increased by 40%. Here's the most distressing part for me: according to the same information, salaries for school superintendents increased by 49% over the same period.
I understand that administrators are necessary for the operation of our school districts. But here's an interesting concept, not original to me, but one I believe I could endorse: Let's do away with school districts altogether. More and more, districts rely on state funding for their operations and certainly for school construction. The issue of "local control" becomes less and less imperative as the state not only provides the funding, but also controls the content of classroom instruction and mandates what classes are required for graduation and what tests must be passed to insure graduation. Think of the savings in administrative costs, as well as savings in volume purchasing for everything that goes into a classroom.
As with many innovative concepts, this one requires more investigation; but I believe that it deserves a thorough discussion. What we have now is not working, as evidenced by low test scores and high drop out rates, so let's explore some alternatives. This certainly could not be accomplished in this session, but I hope that we can consider this, and/or other alternatives, during the interim for possible action next year.
As always, I welcome your comments or suggestions.
Until next week,
Nancy
Rep. Nancy McLain
602-926-5051
nmclain@azleg.gov
Nancy McLain, District 3, Arizona House of Representatives
nmclain@azleg.gov or
nmclainbhc@aol.com