Archive for Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Senate pushes for constitutional amendment
June 29, 2005
Advertisement
TOPEKA — Senate leaders Wednesday called on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to urge House Democrats to support a constitutional amendment to clarify the separation of powers and bring an end to the special session.
Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt said his chamber would not work on any measures and instead would spend the eighth day of the session - called to meet Friday's Kansas Supreme Court deadline to boost education spending by $143 million - pressuring House Democrats and moderate Republicans to pass the amendment.
School Finance
More about school finance
- Webcast of live arguments before the Kansas Supreme Court (requires Windows Media Player)
- Brief of the Montoy suit (.pdf)
- Timeline of events in school finance lawsuit
- 6News video: School finance bill to face court
- Plaintiffs: School finance bill fails grade (06-13-06)
- State wants high court to dismiss school suit (06-02-06)
- Legislature approves school finance plan (05-10-06)
- Chat with Bob Corkins, Kansas Education Commissioner (02-02-06)
- House roll call on $148.4 million school finance plan (07-07-05)
- Supt. Weseman's contingency plan (07-06-05)
- More about school finance »
Related documents
- Conference Committee on Senate Bill 549
- House bill info
- Senate bill info
- Kansas public schools cost study
- Kansas public schools cost study executive summary
- Public Education Finances 2004 (.pdf)
- Senate roll call on $148.4 million school finance plan
- Supreme Court's Show Cause Order (07-02-05)
- Supreme Court's Order Denying Extension (.pdf)
- Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1603 (.pdf)
- Supplemental Note on Resolution No. 1603 (.pdf)
Republican House leaders have refused to approve any new funding for education until the chamber passes the proposed constitutional amendment clarifying that only the Legislature can appropriate money. Kansas voters would have to approve the proposed amendment, which has been blocked in the House by Democrats and moderate Republicans.
"The entire ball game is the debate in the House of Representatives," said Schmidt, R-Independence. "It's really not a difficult proposition.
"The governor must provide leadership in this situation. She must step up and get involved today."
Sebelius, who helped broker a new $160 million school finance package Tuesday between Senate leaders and a House coalition, denied holding House Democrats hostage over the amendment.
House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney said his colleagues believe a constitutional amendment must wait until legislators have time to thoroughly review any proposals. He also said Senate Republicans were endangering the deal they spent three days negotiating.
"They made a condition on the agreement after we made the agreement," said McKinney, D-Greensburg. "Where I come from, we don't do that."
The House amendment, which is similar to a proposal the chamber rejected Sunday, surfaced Tuesday night after a day of hearings. The House has failed on two votes to approve a school spending plan.
If justices do not like the Legislature's response to their June 3 decision, they could issue an order freezing nearly $3 billion in state funding. That could keep schools closed after their scheduled start, for many less than 50 days away, affecting 445,000 students and more than 64,000 teachers and support staff.
McKinney said that by demanding passage of a constitutional amendment, Senate GOP leaders could be dooming the Legislature to passing nothing.
"If they want to run the risk of closing schools, they're running the risk," he said. "We came here to solve a problem."
While the House has been deadlocked, Senators have passed the proposed constitutional amendment, as well as a $161 million school finance package. Also, two Senate committees have endorsed the new $160 million package.
"There are no insurmountable goals when the welfare of the children hang in the balance," said Senate Vice President John Vratil, R-Leawood. "I'm not going to point a finger at anybody."
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said Sebelius isn't blocking the process by telling fellow Democrats to reject the amendment.
Meanwhile, it's unclear when the Senate will debate the new funding package - nicknamed "Mo-Jo" because it has sponsors from Morton and Johnson counties. Senate leaders said House action would dictate the next step.
"The key is the constitutional amendment," said Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton. "We're going to spend the day trying to get that accomplished."
House members were expected to have debate Wednesday on the proposed constitutional amendment.
House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, said the Senate GOP comments were well-placed and that could help move his chamber closer to resolution.
"We want a solution, but we're not willing to sacrifice our principles to do it," Mays said. "There's nothing dangerous about this amendment that some would have you believe."
Mays has said he was inclined to block the coalition's school finance plan until an amendment was on it's way to voters. Supporters of the funding package said such a move was unwise.
"He can do that in all probability. But the speaker will suffer the consequences of the public in doing that," Vratil said Tuesday upon completion of the new school package. "We spent three days hammering this out. We don't have three days before the first of July."
Rep. Bill Light, R-Rolla in Morton County, said the coalition is still seeking the 63 votes needed to pass the plan in the House against Mays' objections.
"It's a positive step for getting us home," Light said. "It's going to be on his shoulders what he wants to do. We just have to wait and see."
More like this
- House approves $139 million school finance plan June 30, 2005
- Republicans vow to reject bills until court limits approved 14 comments / June 27, 2005
- Marriage proposal sent to panel; supporters worry January 19, 2005
- School finance plan OK'd on one condition 5 comments / June 30, 2005
- Legislative leaders await key vote July 1, 2005
Top ads RSS
- Customer Service/ Manager Trainees!! $450/wk. Must be able to start ...
- Unarmed Security Officers FT/PT License Preferred $13/hr. + Benefits Application ...
- Auto Service Tech needed with own tools & experience. Jay, ...
- FUNERAL PLANNING ADVISORS An excellent career opportunity for men and ...
- Googols of Learning Child Development Center is now hiring for ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Dillons, Hyvee, And Checkers — I'Ve Shopped And Compared. See The Results. November 8, 2009 · 18 comments
- Shelter concerns November 8, 2009 · 3 comments
- Poll: Would you vote the same way today as you did for president in 2008? November 6, 2009 · 65 comments
- Why are we dropping out? By Nicholas Dimmick November 8, 2009 · 2 comments
- High School Dropouts, by Molly Fister November 8, 2009 · 2 comments
- Blog: Tacos: What's In It For You? November 6, 2009 · 47 comments
- K-State wins by not losing November 8, 2009 · 7 comments
- Drop-outs, by Tyler Kruzel November 8, 2009 · 1 comment
- High School Dropouts, by Morgan Mills November 8, 2009 · 3 comments
- Mass shooting worst ever at U.S. military base; 12 killed November 6, 2009 · 189 comments
- Consultant: I communicate with animals November 8, 2009
- Killing daughter can’t be matter of honor November 8, 2009
- K-State wins by not losing November 8, 2009
- If the shoe fits: Finding the right kids’ shoes doesn’t have to be difficult November 2, 2009
- KU graduate student in critical but stable condition after chemical contamination November 5, 2009
- Kansas Supreme Court chief justice said budget problems could force courts to close November 6, 2009
- Behind the Lens: ‘Deals’ on cameras may depend on accessories November 8, 2009
- KU task force to focus on retaining students November 8, 2009
- Voters share their thoughts on politics in the past year November 8, 2009
- Emergency crews respond to multiple injury, car versus motorcycle accident November 6, 2009
29 June 2005
at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davey (Anonymous) says…
if the legislature passes this constitutional amendment i will strongly advocate for educators across the state to ignore the law passed by the legislature that forbids them to strike.
29 June 2005
at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
captain_poindexter (Anonymous) says…
why would teachers go on strike because of a constitutional amendment putting jurisdiction with the legislature and not the courts? that doesn't sound logical.
by the way, where is the governor!!!!!!!!!!!
29 June 2005
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davey (Anonymous) says…
Because it would be the only recourse left available to schools to challenge legislative decisons and policies.
29 June 2005
at 1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dani (Anonymous) says…
You know what would be funny? If the House and Senate both pass the amendment but then it fails on the ballot. That'd be a fun little slap in the face for conservatives.
29 June 2005
at 1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
captain_poindexter (Anonymous) says…
the amendment is not only a conservative idea. you have folks like Sen. Vratil and Sen. Morris (not conservatives) calling on the House to pass the amendment.
but it would be funny if it failed on the ballot.
but it won't
the only recourse left available to schools is to advocate for the defeat of the legislators who voted against them. that is democracy. not some stupid strike that only hurts kids (and teachers)
29 June 2005
at 2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
School closings are at stake if no new funding is secured. Small town schools are going to suffer from the arrogance of Mays who comes from a large school district. But then that may what it will take to shake things up a bit. Reality is when parents are driving more miles or children will be forced to waste more HOURS on a school bus.
True conservatives understand the dollar value of public school funding. They also understand economic development can largely depend on a states public school system.
Mays is running for governor. The last two or three governors have been moderates from both sides of the aisle.
If Mays has a moderate side I've yet to see it. Rep. Mays is in love with himself.
29 June 2005
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
saywhat101 (Anonymous) says…
Why not put it on the ballot. If it is up to the voters to make the decision, then that is probably a good thing.
29 June 2005
at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davey (Anonymous) says…
If the amendment passes and schools lose the ability to challenge school finance laws in courts then what is to stop the legislature from forging deals that result in the richest districts being able to raise their LOB to fund additional teacher salaries and educational improvements in their district which will result in an educational system that is extremely unequal………nothing. Sure we can advocate for those who favor such laws to be voted out of office. However, it has been clear in the past that conservatives are not a friend of education. Kansas has been a conservative state and the only way to get the attention of those lawmakers is to take drastic measures. Isn't that what the republicans themselves are proposing through the constitutional amendment? If educators themselves stood up to the republican led legislature and shut schools down for even a day then they would change their tune. If schools were shut down for a day because educators demanded legislative action it might focus the attention where it needs to be….school funding. While kids and teachers would be initially hurt, in the long run it would benefit both. Conservatives have made this special session about amending the constitution rather than about school finance.
29 June 2005
at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
captain_poindexter (Anonymous) says…
all teachers going on strike will do is hurt students (and teachers)
the LOB is fine, it definitely isn't unconstitutional. if you have no problem following the court's plan, then why get rid of LOB.
the supremes didn't say LOB was unconstitutional.
29 June 2005
at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davey (Anonymous) says…
The Supreme Court DID strike down the provision allowing the 17 wealthiest districts in Kansas to raise their LOB to pay higher teacher salaries. To clarify the subject…….the supreme court said that allowing the 17 wealthiest districts to raise their LOB (to levels not allowed by the other districts in the state) in order to pay higher teacher salaries to those in the 17 districts was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that it would create an un-equal funding opportunity for those 17 wealthiest districts. To further clarify this….this provision was initially placed in the school finance proposal to attract the votes of the Johnson county legislators to approve the finance plan. This is the type of issue the supreme court will no longer have jurisdiction under the proposed constitutional amendment.
Do you think that the Labor Unions, by going on strike, have hurt or helped their causes?
Without the ability to strike workers would have no recourse in challenging laws or policies passed by their employers. Educators are essentially state government employees. Therefore without the ability to challenge school funding issues in court, and not having the ability to strike, this essentially leaves educators to the whims of the political process that was just dictated in garnering the necessary votes from Johnson County legislators to pass the original school finance package that WAS struck down as unconstitutional.
Obviously, leaving the funding issue to the conservatives will also hurt students (and teachers). Sometimes in order to furthur ones cause you have to stand up for what is right. One step back is justified to take two steps forward.
Do I need to clarify anything else??
29 June 2005
at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
captain_poindexter (Anonymous) says…
davey, read the opinion again.
the supreme court of kansas did not say that the LOB was unconstitutional.
it stayed the LOB, didn't strike it down.
29 June 2005
at 4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davey (Anonymous) says…
It stayed that part of the LOB. Same thing as declaring it unconstitutional. It did not declare the entire lob unconstitutional only that provision. I thought I made that clear.
The LOB was initially introduced so local school districts could pay for “additional” services as they see fit. However, with the depletion of state funding, districts have been forced to raise their LOB to pay for basic services.
Again, I reiterate, without the ability of the courts to rule on funding issues we will end up with an unequal funding formula that benefits the wealthy and leaves the poor districts struggling. I think this is the way conservatives wish to proceed. Politics at its finest.
What recourse do you see schools having when the funding formula becomes so disproportionate?
29 June 2005
at 6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
usaschools (Anonymous) says…
I would like to see Rep. Mays and the other radicals in jail for contempt of court. The very logic of the proposed constitutional amendment shows that they are violating the law.
Why do they want a constitutional amendment? Because they know the Supreme Court DOES have the authority to order the legislature to appropriate money in this case. The radical right wingers would not need any such amendment if there were any question of the legality of the court's rulings. They know the court is within its power, but instead of complying with a court order, they are defying the court. Could you or I defy a court order? No. They are out of bounds and not doing their job. They are obstructing justice. They are failing to comply with the law of the State of Kansas.
On the LOB subject - One reason that the legislature wants to revist this is that they have raised our taxes this way for several years in a row, without taking any credit for it! They have changed provisions of what is allowed to be financed by LOB as a way to avoid dealing with the financing issue.
At this time, I urge you to contact your representative and tell them to vote NO on the Aurand plan and to support the Mo/Jo compromise in Senate sub for HB 2004 or in another form (an amendment).
You can email them at this link:
http://capwiz.com/nea/ks/mail/oneclic…
29 June 2005
at 7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
captain_poindexter (Anonymous) says…
they cannot be held in contempt of court if they are not a party to the lawsuit.
and a “stay” of the order IS NOT the same as declaring it unconstitutional. If it was, why not call it unconstitutional?
29 June 2005
at 8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
my2cents (Anonymous) says…
I'm all for school funding and education. But at some point you have to set a limit to the amount of money you spend in a year. You can't be spent 180million to fund for something if you don't have the money. Not a great way to run business.
If you raise taxes, build state run casinos, cut higher education (University General Funding) or cut state funding (Social Services, Health Department, State Police, etc…) all which take away from the taxpayer's pocketbook in some way or another.
Oh too the KU people who voted for KU to pay it's own employee's nice job. Now if KU get's it's funding cut because of this, those so called raises above that of the regular state employee won't be there. awesome!!
And your job is now not covered by civil service. nice job!!
Anyway's back to K-12, do they need funding, definately. But pick your poison;
Higher taxes, higher education cost, job's lost, poor health care, higher crime, gambling addictions all for improved K-12 now for them to deal with these problems later.
Or over time and money permits raise education funding slowly over the next couple of years and save jobs, save higher (University) education funding, and social services.
And I have to blast the Kansas House/Senate, Gov. & Judges. Why is it when they say they need to cut funding to save money or pay for a progam, they don't cut thier salaries first? How hard is it to push a yea or nea button? (Apparently hard for some I guess!!!) Does that warrant a six figure salary? a one finger push?
Whatever the choice pick one, stand behind it and get it over!
29 June 2005
at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davey (Anonymous) says…
Regardless of the legal terminology the fact that it was “stayed” means that it cannot be a part of the LOB. Call it what you want……the court disallowed the ability of the 17 wealthiest districts to raise their LOB over the 25% threshold. Unconstitutional/illegal/stayed….all means the same. they can't do it!!!
Capt. Poindexter you need to check your legal advisor. People are held in contempt all the time who are not party to a lawsuit. You can be held in contempt for merely lying to a jury/judge. If you disobey a court order you can be held in contempt.
29 June 2005
at 9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
As a fiscal conservative complete funding of public education is a best bang for our tax dollars. It is good business and an excellent carrot stick for new economic development.
It is my opinion that public education is “good buy” considering the benefits the state will reap from this investment. Also the majority of tax dollars slated for public education do show up in local economies as revenue.
Small town schools are likely at stake. Personally I believe too much time on a school bus is wasted time for our children. Fuel price increases will not allow substantial savings
in budgets if any.
If I had a choice I would tie our KDOT budget to gambling revenues not education. Gambling is too risky for a matter as important as a constant solid public education budget. In my opinion we can live without new super highways. The state cannot live without solid public school revenues. Move state KDOT monies to public education and
support KDOT with gambling revenues or raise taxes for public education ONLY.
My brother and sister in law want to relocate two lucrative small business ventures to eastern Kansas from Anna Marie Island, Florida. They are well aware of the debates that have taken place over the past year regarding public schools. They did not inquire about our roads. They did however inquire about the quality of our public schools.
29 June 2005
at 11:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dani (Anonymous) says…
Ok, honestly, I think not reaching an agreement by July 1 and keeping schools closed until conservatives swallow their pride would be good for Kansas. Hear me out.
With schools closed, parents - especially parents in Johnson, Wyandotte, Douglas, Sedgwick and Shawnee Counties, where you have large populations of school kids - are going to have to pay for more day care, they are going to lose time at work, etc. Obviously, this is going to upset a lot of people. Now, the best way to rally voters is to hit them at home. If the Democrats can rally and point out how this is all the fault of conservative hubris, we might just have an interesting legislative election in 2006.
Here's to slapping conservatives right where it hurts the most: the ego!
30 June 2005
at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monicalewinsky (Anonymous) says…
I think it's quite humorous that the conservative legislators are whining because they were told that they were WRONG and were not doing their jobs. If the legislature had done its job over the past 8-10 years we would not be in this mess. The citizens of Kansas, the Supreme Court, and most importantly, the kids of Kansas have been quite patient waiting for them to do thier constitutional duty. They have not. They only have themselves to blame.
Kansas teacher average salaries are ranked 44th in the nation according to statistics just out recently. That is a drop from 41st, which is also horrible. Lawrence has chosen over the years to keep teachers' salaries among the lowest in the region. This year we had close to 100 teachers leave the district, and without the usual staff cuts that have been prevalent in recent years this is an astonishing number. The district would have you believe that this is due to baby boomer retirements. Not really. This is due to increasingly low salaries and benefits and teachers fed up with the way the administration does business. The Lawrence schools have lost the cutting edge and progressive quality that used to attract teachers to the district. They have lost the reputation for being a collaborative school district where teachers have input and are part of the professional decision making process. It's a shame.
If this doesn't change ( salaries and the way teachers are treated), look for many more early retirements and teachers switching to better districts in the next few years just like what happened this year. Parents in this district should be alarmed and ask the Board of Education to follow it's goal of attracting and retaining quality staff in USD 497. Soon it will be too late.
If the conservatives win and we have a constitutional amendment, then when more problems arise with school funding sometime on down the road there will be no way to stop the legislature from shirking their constitutional duty. The Supreme Court will have no way to put a check and balance on the legislature and the citizens of Kansas will suffer at the mercy of arrogant legislators who want public schools to fail.