Week of March 1st., 2010
Last week in the Education Committee, I called for a vote on legislation that I thought was an important, yet very simple concept related to school funding. HB4711, as introduced, stated that unless the State of Illinois fully funded a mandate made on a local school district, then the local school district could suspend implementation of the unfunded mandate until such time the mandate was fully funded. The suspension of the mandate would have to be performed at a public meeting of the Board of Education following all of the statutory requirements of the Open Meetings Act. Any mandate that became fully funded would be required to once again be implemented.
Because the original concept caused some folks to be concerned that local schools would run right out and do away with all kinds of things that schools should do, I agreed to exempt a number of things from the local school district’s ability to eliminate certain mandates. So, I amended the legislation to state that schools could not eliminate special education, transportation, lunch programs, driver education, regulations required by the health/life safety code, curricula associated with the Illinois Learning Standards and State Assessments, teacher certification requirements, programs impacted by federal funding, laws related to teacher tenure or the evaluation, dismissal or reduction in force of the teaching staff, bilingual education and any item that is contained in a locally bargained contract.
I know that some of you are wondering that if all of these areas are exempted whether or not there is anything left for schools to decide not to implement based on a lack of funding for the mandate. Trust me, there are dozens of additional mandates that are either unfunded or underfunded that schools could choose to eliminate. The fact is that I have also agreed to add criminal background checks, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) mandates and any requirement associated with the Open Meetings Act to the list of items that are excluded from local action.
The debate on whether or not mandates should be funded was lengthy. A t the end of the debate, the bill was voted out of committee by a vote of thirteen to five. The amazing part of the debate was the fact that there was some very strong opposition to the theory that if the State was going to mandate something to local schools that the State should also provide the funds. One Representative stated quite plainly that our job was to pass into law good public policy and not necessarily worry about where the money comes from. Another one stated that we just as well shut the education committee down if we were going to require funding for public policy requirements.
I think that those responses represent a very clear microcosm of the problems that we face in Springfield with our overall budget. There are those who firmly believe that it is the role of government to manage and micromanage every single aspect of public policy without any thought regarding the fact that all these good ideas and great programs cost money. The mind set is that all government is supposed to do is direct public policy and require local government to “do what is right” regardless of whether or not there is funding to pay for the great idea. Of course, there is often real debate as to whether the idea is even all that great to begin with!
We will never solve our State fiscal crisis unless and until that type of irresponsible attitude has changed. I will continue to push for the passage of this legislation and hope that we expand the concept to include all forms of local mandates. If something comes from Springfield unfunded or underfunded, what you have is a de facto local property tax increase or new fee.
Thanks for the huge amount of contact on HB5029. This legislation bans the use of ATV’s by those under age sixteen. It also imposes other restrictions on the use of ATV’s. This legislation is a copy of a bill from last year that was defeated. I will work once again to see that this legislation is defeated.
An important piece of legislation passed the House this week that would require that any State asset with a value of over $1 million be sold only after approval by the General Assembly. This legislation would deal with any state property sale. However, most people believe that the immediate purpose is to make sure that the General Assembly would have to approve the sale of the prison in Thompson for use by the federal government to house both federal prisoners and terrorists currently housed at Gitmo. HB4744 passed the House by a vote of 81-31. I voted in favor of the legislation because I think that this is good public policy.
After the proposed sale of the prison became a hot topic just prior to Christmas, I received hundreds of contact related to the idea. People were surprised to find out that State Representatives and Senators would have no direct vote in this sale. Of course, this does not only apply to Thompson Prison. If, for example, the governor’s office was in favor of selling any other state asset like the lottery or the state toll roads, the General Assembly would have to approve the sale if this bill becomes law. I think that is a proper role for those who most directly represent the people.
I will have more for you from Springfield next week. In the meantime, you can reach me at: P.O. Box 125, Hutsonville, IL 62433, call me at 618-563-4128 or 217-558-1040 or e-mail me at reddyunit1@aol.com. You can also read more on my web site: www.peopleforeddy.com or and follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/RepEddy and www.tweetillinois.org.