Lawmakers ponder response to top court's education ruling
SEATTLE (AP) - Washington lawmakers plan to argue right up until a Sept. 17 deadline about what they should tell the Supreme Court about how they'll fix the way the state pays for K-12 education.
In July, the court gave the Legislature two months to file its first report on what they were doing in answer to a January ruling that the state isn't meeting its constitutional obligation to amply pay for basic education. In the past decade, education spending has gone from close to 50 percent to just above 40 percent of the state budget, despite the fact that some education spending is protected by the constitution.
State lawmakers have in recent years been dealing with large budget deficits, and earlier this year they cut $300 million in state funding. The spending plan didn't include any cuts to education, but lawmakers will continue to scramble to find money to pay for government services when they meet again in January.
All summer, various legislative committees focused on education have been meeting, but the one committee assigned by lawmakers to report back to the Supreme Court has yet to convene.
The Senate members of that committee wanted to meet at the end of August to talk about the report, but House members had legal concerns and declined to meet, Sen. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, told The Associated Press.
She said the debate came down to one issue: Was the assignment by the Supreme Court something the Legislature should deal with in a public committee? Or was it an issue of attorney-client privilege - and therefore the lawyers representing the Legislature should handle all communications with the court?
Committee members have been working on a solution, say Rolfes and Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia. Staff has been in touch with every committee member individually to discuss the report and will have a draft ready for discussion at a meeting next week, probably on Wednesday in the Seattle area, said Rep. Jaime Pedersen, D-Seattle.
Pedersen said there was never a question whether the committee would meet to discuss the report in a public way. He said this process has mirrored the usual way the Legislature does its work, with staff members preparing analyses and fiscal reports on bills before a committee meets to discuss them.
Everything else about the Legislature communicating directly with the Supreme Court is unique, acknowledged Pedersen, who is a lawyer with experience in constitutional issues.
"I think the Supreme Court has taken itself into really difficult and unchartered waters by asserting for itself some oversight over the fundamental power of the legislative branch, which is the power of the purse," Pedersen said.
He said, however, that lawmakers were gratified that the Supreme Court decided to communicate directly with the Legislature, as they had requested, instead of assigning someone or some agency to be a go-between.
The report due Sept. 17 is the first of at least six the Supreme Court requested in its July ruling. The other reports are due 60 days after the governor signs the state budget each year.
After the Legislature files its reports, the coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and community groups who brought the lawsuit will have 30 days to file their own critique of the Legislature's progress reports.
In Chief Justice Barbara Madsen's July order, she wrote that the Legislature's reports must show "real and measurable" progress toward achieving full compliance with the Constitution.
The order also set a firm deadline of 2018 to fix the way the state pays for education in Washington.
Pedersen said he believes the Supreme Court could help lawmakers pay for that reform plan by coming to the correct conclusion when it considers another constitutional lawsuit, one considering whether it is unconstitutional to require lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority to raise taxes.
The Supreme Court has agreed to an expedited review of that case, brought by the League of Education Voters, the teacher's union, parents, taxpayers and lawmakers. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 25.
"They have an opportunity to play an important role in enforcing the constitution and allowing the Legislature to do its job in raising adequate revenue," Pedersen said.
In July, the court gave the Legislature two months to file its first report on what they were doing in answer to a January ruling that the state isn't meeting its constitutional obligation to amply pay for basic education. In the past decade, education spending has gone from close to 50 percent to just above 40 percent of the state budget, despite the fact that some education spending is protected by the constitution.
State lawmakers have in recent years been dealing with large budget deficits, and earlier this year they cut $300 million in state funding. The spending plan didn't include any cuts to education, but lawmakers will continue to scramble to find money to pay for government services when they meet again in January.
All summer, various legislative committees focused on education have been meeting, but the one committee assigned by lawmakers to report back to the Supreme Court has yet to convene.
The Senate members of that committee wanted to meet at the end of August to talk about the report, but House members had legal concerns and declined to meet, Sen. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, told The Associated Press.
She said the debate came down to one issue: Was the assignment by the Supreme Court something the Legislature should deal with in a public committee? Or was it an issue of attorney-client privilege - and therefore the lawyers representing the Legislature should handle all communications with the court?
Committee members have been working on a solution, say Rolfes and Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia. Staff has been in touch with every committee member individually to discuss the report and will have a draft ready for discussion at a meeting next week, probably on Wednesday in the Seattle area, said Rep. Jaime Pedersen, D-Seattle.
Pedersen said there was never a question whether the committee would meet to discuss the report in a public way. He said this process has mirrored the usual way the Legislature does its work, with staff members preparing analyses and fiscal reports on bills before a committee meets to discuss them.
Everything else about the Legislature communicating directly with the Supreme Court is unique, acknowledged Pedersen, who is a lawyer with experience in constitutional issues.
"I think the Supreme Court has taken itself into really difficult and unchartered waters by asserting for itself some oversight over the fundamental power of the legislative branch, which is the power of the purse," Pedersen said.
He said, however, that lawmakers were gratified that the Supreme Court decided to communicate directly with the Legislature, as they had requested, instead of assigning someone or some agency to be a go-between.
The report due Sept. 17 is the first of at least six the Supreme Court requested in its July ruling. The other reports are due 60 days after the governor signs the state budget each year.
After the Legislature files its reports, the coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and community groups who brought the lawsuit will have 30 days to file their own critique of the Legislature's progress reports.
In Chief Justice Barbara Madsen's July order, she wrote that the Legislature's reports must show "real and measurable" progress toward achieving full compliance with the Constitution.
The order also set a firm deadline of 2018 to fix the way the state pays for education in Washington.
Pedersen said he believes the Supreme Court could help lawmakers pay for that reform plan by coming to the correct conclusion when it considers another constitutional lawsuit, one considering whether it is unconstitutional to require lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority to raise taxes.
The Supreme Court has agreed to an expedited review of that case, brought by the League of Education Voters, the teacher's union, parents, taxpayers and lawmakers. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 25.
"They have an opportunity to play an important role in enforcing the constitution and allowing the Legislature to do its job in raising adequate revenue," Pedersen said.
How about creating a more business friendly state, so rather than raising the tax rate, we raise the GDP of the state and taxes at current rates should be enough. Make a bigger pie rather than taking more of the pie we have.
Â
Rather than complaining about illegals, who pick our crops and do our dirty work, how about a decent work visa program that recognizes the need for seasonal labor. Then they would be paid above board and pay taxes.
Part of the problem is a lot of us baby boomers now get a discount on what we pay in the way of property taxes, which is good for us but not good for the public school system. Time to end all property taxes for residential property and just add on a penny or 2 to our sales taxes. That way everyone pays their fair share for public schools.
@Blindman The solution isn't to raise taxes every time the State has a budget crisis. It's time to cut funding to any unnecessary program out there and focus on what is most important. Education should be one of the top priorities on the necessary list.
Â
Based off of this Proposed Budget Expenditure, the highest receiver of funds besides public schools (42.8%) is Social and Health services (17.9%). Wanna to raise enough funding to cover the gap for the lack of funding for public schools? SIMPLE. Deny illegal immigrants any kind of welfare. There ya go. That's millions and millions of dollars that could go to public education.
Â
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget11/highlights/proposed_budget_expenditures.pdf
I am real curious about what discount us baby boomers get on our property tax and where do I go and who do I see to get this discount??? For the past 32 years my property tax has gone up and up with no end in sight. I really think property tax for residents should end too or at the very least only property owners should get to vote on property taxes.
 @Jatok Are you that naive?  You don't think renters are paying enough rent to cover their landlords' real estate taxes?  You can bet that if property taxes were eliminated, you would not see rents drop one red cent.
No as a matter of fact as a renter I also got the taxes passed on to me for another 16 years on top of the 32 for my house. But you do have people out there who are not aware of the fact and they vote like it won't affect them in any way. The difference is that IF I can't pay my property tax I loose my home. The renter has nothing invested in the property and so if they can't pay the rent they just have to move. Quite a difference in my opinion.
@Jatok Yeah I'd like to know how that works too.
I am aware of the conditions, but the post I was replying to was talking about baby boomers with reduced property taxes which isn't fair to the system somehow. I don't think the number of disabled are the majority of baby boomers and beyond that I would really like to see the end of putting things off on the baby boomers. We are also the ones who have paid up to this point for a lot of the things that the younger generations now have.
 @Kodiak  @Jatok It only works if you are a minimum of 62 years of age or disabled AND have an income less than a certain level. Information is readily available from your county taxing authority.
 @Blindman Sounds like you own a lot of real estate.
.Nope. Just my home with 3 acres. I still have to pay some property taxes because of the way they pro rate it. You only get a discount on the first $80,000 of your home. Just think its time for the legislature to do the right thing and fund public school with public money which means sales taxes. That ay everyone pays their fair share.
@Tim Lane  @Blindman