Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge tentatively rules for California in school funding suit
SacBee: Capitol Alert ^ | 3/27/12 | Kevin Yamamura

Posted on 03/27/2012 5:32:33 PM PDT by SmithL

In a court battle that could shape how schools are funded, a judge tentatively ruled Tuesday that California lawmakers can reduce education funding by diverting state revenues into new pots of money.

School boards and administrators sued the state last fall alleging that Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers had shortchanged schools by shifting about $5 billion in sales tax revenues to counties in a new realignment fund.

Under voter-approved Proposition 98, the state is required to devote a specified share of overall general fund revenues to K-12 schools and community colleges. School officials said that by diverting $5 billion in sales taxes, the state avoided sending $2 billion it owed to education last year under the constitution.

In recent years, recalculating Proposition 98 has become a popular solution to balancing the budget in the final days -- as long as the powerful school lobby signs off. Last year, the California Teachers Association agreed to the shift after winning concessions that protected jobs. But school administrators were upset because they said the budget had tied their hands in terms of midyear layoffs or furloughs while cutting $2 billion in the process.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn issued a preliminary ruling today indicating that he believes the state has the power to create new special funds, and that none of those dollars have to be devoted to schools under Proposition 98.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: cta; goldenstate; unionthugs; yourtaxdollarsatwork

1 posted on 03/27/2012 5:32:38 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Those cold-hearted hateful Democrats have cut school funding AGAIN.


2 posted on 03/27/2012 5:34:22 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Is it just my imagination, or is this reporter bending over backwards to make it sound like this ruling affects every state in the union?


3 posted on 03/27/2012 5:38:46 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

The article refers to a Superior Court judge in California, not a Federal Court Judge. I’m pretty sure the author knows the difference, and would know that this only applies to California.


4 posted on 03/27/2012 5:58:34 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

The article was in the Sacramento Bee’s blog about state government. So I don’t think anyone reading the blog would think it applied to the whole country.


5 posted on 03/28/2012 11:50:40 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson