Lawmakers send school funding equity bill to Brownback

Kansas House Speaker Ray Merrick, left, R-Stilwell, consults with Rep. Marvin Kleeb, R-Overland Park, during a debate on a school funding plan, Thursday, March 24, 2016, at the Statehouse in Topeka. Fellow lawmakers from Johnson County support the GOP plan because it prevents a cut in aid to their schools as the state redistributes education funding.

? Kansas lawmakers passed and sent to Gov. Sam Brownback a school funding equity bill that supporters hope will satisfy the Kansas Supreme Court.

Moments later, both chambers adjourned the regular part of the 2016 session and headed home for a monthlong break. They will return Wednesday, April 27, for the start of a wrap-up session, which mainly involves finalizing the budget in light of updated revenue estimates that come out in mid-April, and dealing with any bills vetoed by the governor.

The two chambers passed the equity bill six weeks to the day after the Supreme Court declared parts of the current funding system unconstitutional. But the bill itself was only unveiled Tuesday and was rushed through the House and Senate in the final hours of the regular session.

It is intended as a one-year fix to a school funding system that lawmakers intend to overhaul next year, and supporters said their only goal is to satisfy the Supreme Court, which has threatened to close public schools if lawmakers do not cure the equity problems by July 1.

“We are committed to one single goal,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Ron Ryckman Jr., R-Olathe. “Satisfy the Supreme Court directly so that public education is not disrupted by litigation.”

But opponents said they doubted the bill would pass court muster, and they said it falls short of solving the long-term needs of Kansas schools, which include both equitable and adequate funding.

Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, who serves on the Appropriations Committee, said she could tell that the bill doesn’t solve the equity problems by looking at who testified for and against the bill.

“What struck me about the testimony (Wednesday) was that one of the superintendents representing one of our wealthiest districts in Kansas (Blue Valley) was a proponent,” she said. “One of the other superintendents representing one of our poorest districts (Kansas City) was an opponent.”

Debate in the House became heated after Rep. John Whitmer, R-Wichita, argued that Democrats who were criticizing the bill had not offered any proposals of their own. That prompted an angry and boisterous reply from House Minority Leader Tom Burroughs of Kansas City.

“We value children and we will stand up for children,” Burroughs said. Then, pointing directly at Whitmer, he said: “You want to take the position of voting against funding for children in hopes that they’ll vote Republican, then continue down that road. You, sir, are an ideologist, a politician …”

At that point, the House chamber erupted in shouts and boos as Burroughs was called out of order for directing his comments toward another individual, a violation of House protocol. Burroughs later apologized “for losing my decorum.”

Earlier in the Senate, Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley said he would file a separate constitutional objection expressing his opposition to the bill.

“I’ve never lived on a farm, but I think there’s an old expression about putting lipstick on a pig,” he said, referring to last year’s law, which abolished the old school funding formula and changed the way equalization aid is calculated, as the pig.

“I think we are doing a major disservice to the school districts that we represent and to our constituents by passing a bill that in my mind is clearly unconstitutional,” he said.

Many moderate Republicans acknowledged they had concerns about the bill, but said they would vote for it anyway in hopes of preventing the Supreme Court from closing schools.

The equity issue is only one part of a school finance lawsuit that also challenges the overall adequacy of school funding. The court will hear oral arguments on that issue later this spring, and is expected to issue a ruling in the fall.

The bill passed both chambers largely along party lines. It passed the Senate, 32-5, with all eight Democrats either voting no or passing.

It passed the House, 93-31, with five Republicans joining 25 Democrats in voting no. Two Johnson County Democrats, Jarrod Ousley and Nancy Lusk, joined 91 Republicans in voting yes.

In essence, the bill adds about $23.5 million for equalizing capital outlay budgets. But it deletes nearly $83 million for local option budget equalization, and then applies a different formula to the LOB equalization so that it is spread more evenly among districts, in relation to their per-pupil assessed valuation.

That results in a net decrease of $59.4 million in both categories, which the bill then redistributes in the form of “hold harmless” payments to all the districts that lose money in the exchange, boosting their general operating funds.

The Lawrence, Eudora and Baldwin City school districts are all in the category of districts that would be held harmless, which means that, overall, they would receive the same amount of state aid next year that they are receiving this year.

Each of those districts could, however, increase the local property tax levies to make up for the decreased local option budget aid, which would give them increased spending authority next year.

Gov. Sam Brownback is widely expected to sign the bill, although his office did not issue a statement after the House and Senate votes. By law, he has 10 days from the day he officially receives the bill to make a decision.