[Vision2020] Pass the Moscow School District Levy Nov. 13

[Tom Hansen]

Questions for city council candidates Dan Carscallen, Wayne Krauss, and
Walter Steed:

 

1)  Do you support or oppose the Moscow school levy being voted upon on
November 13?

 

2)  If you support this levy, will you actively campaign for its passage
with your voice at public activities and your endorsement in the media?

 

3)  If each, and all, of you support this levy, as city council candidates
endorsed by the Greater Moscow Alliance, will you encourage the Greater
Moscow Alliance to further campaign for its passage both publicly and
privately?

 

>From today's (October 13, 2007) Moscow-Pullman Daily News -

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

HER VIEW: Pass the Moscow School District levy Nov. 13 

 

By Judith L. Brown

 

"Lemons to lemon meringue." 

 

I've heard that said twice now about Moscow School District's
challenge/opportunity to re-run the levy that passed last March but then
became the focus of a lawsuit.

 

With the onset of colder weather, I suppose it's a bit late in the season to
be talking about turning lemons into lemonade. What else can be made from
the sour fruit? Luscious lemon meringue pie.

 

I agree completely that most people who voted for the levy last March knew
exactly what they were voting for. They were voting for an increase in the
Moscow School District's indefinite levy, also called a permanent
supplemental levy, of $1.97 million, thereby increasing the total amount of
MSD's permanent supplemental from $5.6 million to $7.57 million per year.

 

However, after listening to Second District Court Judge John Bradbury a week
ago last Friday, I also see that the legal basis for indefinite levies lacks
clarity on a couple of important issues. This has been the case ever since
the Idaho Legislature enacted legislation authorizing permanent
supplementals.

 

One chief ambiguity stems from the failure of the law to spell out
explicitly how a school district with a permanent supplemental goes about
asking its patrons to approve an increase in the amount of the permanent
supplemental. Why would a school district need to increase its permanent
supplemental? Because over time inflation erodes its value. Because over
time the Idaho Legislature continues to allow state support for public
education to wither. Because the patrons of a school district may wish to
further improve the quality of the education they provide their children.

 

Discussion around how to resolve this ambiguity turned on somewhat arcane
points about whether a school district asks for an increase in its permanent
supplemental, or whether it actually asks for a new permanent supplemental
in a greater amount. The net effect for us lay people may be the same in
either case - an increase in the amount of money a school district is
authorized to collect from its patrons annually - but the legal
justification may be more solid in one case than in the other.

 

In any event, Bradbury decided there is indeed legal authorization for
school districts to request to increase their permanent supplementals,
thereby clarifying this important point. He also ruled that MSD in
particular has met the legal requirements for requesting a new and larger
permanent supplemental.

 

The ambiguity around how a school district requests to increase its
permanent supplemental is related directly to a second ambiguity swirling
around in this lawsuit: how best to phrase the ballot question when a school
district seeks to increase its permanent supplemental. Should the ballot
question specify the amount of the increase being requested, or should it
specify the total amount of the district's supplemental, i.e. the current
supplemental plus the increase?

 

The question on the ballot last March specified the amount of the increase
being requested, $1.97 million. MSD officials tussled with how best to
phrase the ballot question. They'd sought the advice of the state attorney
general, and thought they were on solid legal footing. Furthermore, Bradbury
emphasized that he firmly believed everyone involved in this lawsuit had
acted in good faith.

 

However, after reading and rereading the law, and emphasizing that this had
not been an easy decision, Bradbury concluded that the ballot question
should have included the total amount of the permanent supplemental being
requested, $7.57 million. And so he gave MSD six weeks to rerun the levy
election.

 

I sincerely hope MSD's request for a larger permanent supplemental levy will
pass again, handily. I am optimistic that it will, although there is much
hard work to be done between now and the Nov. 13 election. In the process,
the legal basis under which school districts all around the state request
permanent supplementals will have been clarified and solidified.

 

Unfortunately, the Moscow School District, as the sole defendant in this
lawsuit, is bearing the cost of clarifying these points pretty much alone.
But that's the way our legal system works. Fortunately, the Moscow School
District also is blessed with supportive patrons who have both the will and
the power to weather this lawsuit and improve funding for our schools.

 

Lemons to lemon meringue.

 

Let's swarm the polls Nov. 13 and pass this levy for the second and final
time.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007) 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071013/b68e6c95/attachment.html