Posted on 02/03/2004 11:35:38 AM PST by cogitator
Measure 30 backers brace for worst
As election draws nearer, mood is bleak among school advocates
PORTLAND — With the Measure 30 tax vote looming, school advocates in Oregon say they are steeling themselves for its failure.
If voters turn down the three-year, temporary increase in the income tax on Feb. 3, schools stand to automatically lose $285 million.
Polls for the measure have suggested it will fail, and pro-tax advocates don't have the money to gear up for a last-minute all-out TV media blitz that might make the difference, leaving school advocates resigned to at least another year of budget cuts.
"We are feeling that it is probably going to fail," said Nellie Franklin, whose son is a senior at Burns High School in southeastern Oregon. "I thought, maybe people will start realizing this is real, but they are still thinking, 'Oh they have the money ratholed away somewhere.' "
The mood is just the opposite, though, for Measure 30 opponents like Dan Ziegler, who has founded the Corvallis Coalition for Responsible School Funding, and says his local school district needs to reduce spending on teacher salaries and benefits before asking for more money from taxpayers.
Some school districts were prudent in budgeting by assuming schools will get only $4.8 billion from the state, not the $5.2 billion they will receive if the tax increase passes, said Richard Burke, executive director of the state Libertarian Party, which also opposes Measure 30.
Burke argues that districts that drafted budgets based on the higher number were "irresponsible. They are the ones that have the pressure on them."
If the measure does fail, Oregon schools will find themselves in familiar territory. Last winter, Oregon voters turned down a similar tax measure, Measure 28, forcing about half of the state's schools to shut down early and prompting teacher layoffs statewide.
Lawmakers spent the longest legislative session in state history wrangling over how to fix the state's budget problems, caused by a decline in income tax collections, and finally agreed on a three-year temporary income tax surcharge, to raise $800 million for schools, social services and public safety.
But most schools didn't breathe easy even then, figuring that the Legislature's bipartisan decision would be referred to the ballot, and ultimately decided on by Oregon's perenially anti-tax voters.
That scenario came true, and now some school advocates find themselves struggling to stay optimistic in the last days before the votes are counted.
"I think there is a sliver of hope," said Mike Moran, the chairman of the Medford school board. "There has been some pretty blunt education of voters this time around. I think that it could go the right way."
And if it doesn't, in Medford, the school district has contingency plans in place: high school counselors may go, as well as the elementary school music program, and 10 teaching positions from the high school, Moran said.
-----------------------------------------
And this is an interesting perspective on Measure 30 from an Oregon Republican legislator:
Measure 30: Immediate solutions needed
Opponents of Measure 30, the Legislature’s balanced-budget tax plan, have raised several arguments against it that need to be rebutted. In the interest of informed public discussion of the measure, I have addressed and responded to some of the common arguments and questions, below.
You don’t raise taxes in a recession. Taxes are a drag on the economy and a tax increase could affect our recovery from recession, agreed. But cutting essential services now would be worse. Services such as education, human services and public safety are vital to a healthy economy. And demand for these services has risen, even while our general fund revenue has fallen at a rate not seen since the Great Depression.
On balance, the potential long-term harm from cutting services would be greater than any short-term negative impact that might follow from Measure 30.
Why are schools, police and the Oregon Health Plan targeted for cuts if Measure 30 fails? We spend 95 percent of our general fund budget on education, public safety and human services. If Measure 30 fails and the state loses hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, the cuts will necessarily fall on those programs and services because that’s where we spend the money.
The sky didn’t fall when voters rejected Measure 28 last year. What’s different this time? When Measure 28 was defeated, there were serious consequences. Schools cut school days. Courts closed. Thousands of violations and crimes were delayed or not even prosecuted. Oregon Health Plan benefits were slashed. And things would have been even worse if the Legislature had not borrowed $450 million to avoid shutting down whole agencies and programs.
There will be no more borrowing if Measure 30 fails. There are no more easy answers. Cuts in critical services will have to be made, and the consequences will be real.
Why doesn’t the Legislature just cut spending? The legislature has cut spending. After revenue started to decline in 2001, the Legislature cut $1.112 billion from the approved budget. Per-student spending fell 7.1 percent during 2002. The approved budget for 2003-05 is 5 percent less than the approved budget for 2001-03.
We don’t need a tax increase; we need to reform government. We need both. The 2003 Legislature made some major reforms. We reformed PERS, reducing the unfunded liability by $8 billion and cutting employer contributions. We ended “continuing service level” budgeting. We moved to streamline the regulatory process. We should always be reinventing government to provide better services at the lowest cost to taxpayers. Opponents of Measure 30 have offered some worthwhile suggestions for further reforms. But we have an immediate budget shortfall that won’t be fixed by long-term reforms. Only Measure 30 will provide revenue in this biennium to address our needs now.
Measure 30 presents voters with stark choices and complex issues. There may be no good time to raise taxes. But there’s no worse time than now to cut the essential services we need to move Oregon forward. That’s why I’m supporting Measure 30 and urge Oregonians to do likewise.
Yes.
And if they don't think they are (wasting the taxpayer's money), can the taxpayers show them where it's being wasted?
Already been done. Nobody is listening.
If you're trying to advocate higher taxes for Oregon, don't.
How about I start with just one?
Hillsboro School District *borrowed* several million dollars from a bank to build a new state-of-the-art DISTRICT OFFICE for Administrators. Their new high school has an ELEVATED TRACK, not a ground-level one.
The Beaverton School Board gave pay raises with the property tax increase instead of using it on books and programs.
Since you think all of this is 'required' -- defend yourself.
I'm getting my data from the schoolteachers. Where are you getting yours from? The DNC?
I most seriously doubt it!
Do you really think that a suitable president can't be found for the University of Oregon for a salary less than $660,000/year?
Tomorrow the bleeding hearts will be all over the airwaves and in the classrooms.
Rep. Lane Shetterly, R-Dallas, is speaker pro tem and chairman of the House Revenue Committee. He can be reached at (503) 623-0324.
Anybody who lives in this clown's district should already be chomping at the bit to throw the scumbag OUT.
Ha! You got that right. Same thing in Tennessee. Remember how the sky was gonna fall if the scumbag politicians couldn't get their filthy hands on more of other people's money? Well, the sky didn't fall.
In a shameless promotion of my post, I have started a new thread with the most recent election returns posted here
Top 10 Reasons to Oppose
#2 - The real aim of the Blank Check Initiative is to make it easier for the legislature to increase our income tax, sales tax, property tax, car tax, and other state taxes, year after year. Prop. 56 pretends to discipline Sacramento politicians, but it actually rewards them with an open-ended blank check.
I'm not in a position to judge. First of all, I was talking about school system superintendents, not university presidents. Second, university presidents have a job that's a lot like the CEO of a major corporation: they have to do administration, lobby for funds from the state, attract donors, make short-term and long-term plans, discipline unruly coaches (I had to toss that in), determine where the university should have high-profile programs (like biotechnology or Latin classics, etc.) -- in short, they do a lot of things. A really good university president can definitely affect the fortunes of a school, which also goes for a really bad university president.
Here's an idea. Evaluate the total budget of the University of Oregon, and determine what size of company is similar. Then see what they are paying the CEOs of companies that size. Should you pay a university president an approximately equivalent amount?
So would you also use that criteria for the office of Governor of the entire State of Oregon? U. of O. president gets $660,000, the governor gets something like $90,000.
No, I wouldn't even use the salary of the POTUS, which is $400,000 (I believe). In my mind, a university (even public university) is more like a corporation than a government department, and the position of a university president is a lot different than a standard civil-service position. As an example, numerous Cabinet members have left multi-million dollar positions to serve the government for much lower salaries; government positions are not compensated fairly for what they demand, and the people who take those positions do them for reasons other than monetary gain. In contrast, a university president should be compensated for doing his job well, and while the criteria by which success would be judged is different than for a private corporation, success in this realm should still be compensated at market value.
[Note before proceeding: this is a different argument than for a public school system superintendent. While I think that such positions should be compensated fairly, I also think that the bidding for so-called "top talent" is spiraling out of control, and there are good (i.e., bad) examples of that here in Maryland.]
Not knowing the numbers, I Googled on "university president salaries". Very interesting results:
Top College President Salaries Approaching $1 Million, New Survey Reports
Excerpted:
"While pay for public university presidents still has not reached those heights, the salary gap between public and private college leaders is rapidly shrinking, according to the report. Twelve public university presidents will earn more than $500,000 in 2003-4, twice the number of last year. "
The article also notes that states only pay a portion of the salaries of university presidents for public universities. "In reaction to the rising presidential salaries, some state governments have proposed capping the state contribution to public presidential salaries. Florida has already imposed a cap on the state contribution, while a bill under consideration in Ohio would limit state contributions to presidential salaries to the same salary as the governor."
That seems reasonable.
One more article:
UF president to be among highest paid in the nation
Excerpting a couple of paragraphs; pay attention to the last one:
"GAINESVILLE - Incoming University of Florida president Bernie Machen could make up to an average of $685,625 annually if he stays eight years and meets goals set by the school's trustees.
That salary package would make him among the most highly paid public university presidents in the country, according to a Sunday report in the Gainesville Sun, which obtained a draft of his contract."
...
"Last year, state lawmakers set a $225,000 limit on the amount of public money that can be spent annually on a president's salary.
UF equally will tap three direct support organizations to pay Machen beyond the cap: the UF Foundation, the University Athletic Association and Shands Healthcare, said Manny Fernandez, the UF trustee who recruited Machen."
....
"If you want to be in the top 10 among public universities in rankings, he ought to be compensated at that level," Fernandez said. "You are talking about running a very complex $3-billion company here."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.