~ Legislative
News Update ~
__________________________________________________________________________________
Senator Tim Corder
Loose ends and going home –
maybe.
S1080 was caught in a fight between House
Republicans and House Democrats and was voted down on the floor of the
House. 1080 was a bill codifying the
Early Childhood Coordinating Council.
The Council operates on a $20,000 budget from federal grants and has the
single purpose of coordinating all other agencies that provide services to
children with special needs. The Council
provides no services but is wholly responsible for eliminating redundancy and
overlapping services among service providers.
In other words, the Council is about facilitating efficient
bureaucracy. It was defeated because a
Democrat was carrying the bill in the House.
Childcare was also before the Senate again
this year in the form of H129. The
history of my engagement with childcare licensing is a long one. Suffice it to say; House amendments to Senate
bill S1112 in 2009 made the bill difficult for providers. Administrative rules have allowed the program
to operate outside strict adherence to the statute. Continuing in that unofficial status was an
untenable position. The House offered
some major revisions of the code that were, in my opinion, a major step backward
and did little to make safer environments for children or accommodate all providers. I offered an amendment. The House members and I agreed on a
compromise. While still not restrictive
enough, in my opinion, with respect to provider licensure however; the removal
of maximum group size, the transition to a point system for calculating
teacher/student ratio, and counting all children in the ratio are positive
steps forward that we can all take pride in.
Protection for guardsmen employers from
negative unemployment experience ratings as a result of deployment (S1017); and
the extension of time to receive tax refunds (S1079); and the elimination of
use tax on vehicles owned by veterans on temporary transfer to Idaho (S1052)
have all been signed by the Governor and are now law. I am proud of each. They were relatively simple pieces of
legislation that do not impact a lot of people but each is very important to
those potentially impacted. Each bill
was an appropriate change in
Speaking of dragons. It appears S1143 – Dangerous Dogs is my 2011
sacrifice to petty politics and political bullies. The House committee proposed an amendment
that clarified the rights of livestock producers to kill dogs that harass
livestock. I concurred with the House
change but pettiness and rogue lobbyists acted in their own self-interests to
stop the bill’s movement. There was
nothing earthshaking in S1143; just a needed thirty year update to the vicious
dog statute that reflects how we all relate to our dogs in this and future
decades.
In summary, it is difficult to measure and
demonstrate success in the legislature.
There are some who choose to rate me by the votes that don’t measure up
to their ideology. For those people I
always fail to measure up because one or two votes contrary to their position
are sufficient for disqualification. For
some it might be the number, the subject, or the quality of legislation I introduce
or support. Ideologues on the extremes
will likely be disappointed.
I would rate the 2011 session as one of the
worst in my seven because, as a whole, the legislature has not listened to or
has ignored the will of the people. I
have seen, and we have passed, some of the sloppiest most self-serving
legislation in seven years. Meeting
rooms in our new capitol have been filled for hours by people testifying only
to have the vote go contrary to overwhelming majorities. Collaboration and consensus have been
punished; not rewarded. Thoughtful
consideration of opposing views has been dismissed while open constitutional
anarchy has been embraced. Legal advice
and institutional wisdom have been disregarded in lieu of a newfound
enlightenment. It appears we have the
government we asked for.
That said; I am proud of our people. I have been delighted by the turnout at
public meetings. I am thrilled that more
and more people are asking what they can do to help govern and make a
difference. I have long advocated that a
crisis is essential in education and taxation so that systemic and fundamental
change might occur. We now have crises
in both. I have every confidence we, the
majority of the people, will prevail and define once again the real power of
the people.
The majority of my legislation has
passed. I was able to influence policy
with regard to veterans, agriculture, legal immunity, animal care, poultry
regulation, mega loads, covered loads, and other things. I have had a good legislative year in spite
of the losses. I was thoughtful. I was patient. I listened and read and studied and I kept
you informed. I conducted myself with
honor and integrity. That’s how I
measure it.
I look forward to sitting with my second
graders and spending time with family and chores and planning for next
year. I hope you call on me to come
speak or listen. Thank you for the
privilege of serving you once again. As
always, tcorder@senate.idaho.gov,
332-1331.
Senator Tim Corder
Follow me on: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Week Twelve
You know the scene in the Blues Brothers movie
where the building the Blues Brothers are in gets blown up and all that is left
of the building is a pile of brick and rubble?
In the next scene we see the Brothers covered in brick but they push up
through the brick, stand up, Elwood looks at his watch and declares,
“We have to go to work.” Off the
Brothers go, brushing bits and pieces of debris off their shoulders as they go,
seemingly oblivious to the carnage left behind.
I always thought that scene mildly
comedic. After this legislative session
that scene seems painfully prophetic.
Who or what will rise from the rubble is the question. I expect this legislative session will end
soon. History is neither kind nor
vitriolic, it is just history. Each of
us in our own way must rise up oblivious to apparent rubble and set about
building the future a day at a time.
S1184, the third education reform bill, has
passed the legislature. The collective
outcome of the three bills, in my view, is not innovative education reform;
however, the effect of the bills will change education as we have known
it. More, not less, parental input and
participation will be needed so that our children do not fall farther
behind. I will do my best to not allow
my own skepticism to limit any potential success of the approved measures. One criticism that I have heard often is
that the school districts are top heavy with administration. All current state and district programs will
continue in addition to new responsibilities for technology oversight,
maintenance, and administration. Fewer
teachers will also be one of the outcomes of the “reform.” Taken together, these reforms mean fewer
teachers and more administration with the result that the administration factor
to teacher ratio will increase.
Trailer bill is a term used to mean that a
primary bill had some mistakes that need correction and another bill is created
to correct the errors. There were three
education bills and there will be at least three trailer bills. Each will have an emergency clause: meaning
that the bill will take effect upon the legislature adjourning sine die or upon
the signature of the Governor. Nothing
in the three original bills requires any immediate action. In fact, there is a three year implementation
requirement. Why the emergency? There is an effort to hold a referendum
election on the three bills. A
referendum would allow each of you to vote on the three bills in 2012 to affirm
or reject their implementation. To get
the issue on the ballot in 2012 the required signatures must be filed before
implementation of the bills. If the emergency clauses pass and are successfully
implemented they would have the effect of disallowing the referendum.
Primary elections are changing for
Medicaid cuts will take their toll on our
disadvantaged population, our county resources, our churches, and our
taxpayers. In reality, each of us will
feel and see effects of these changes in policy. Entitlements still exist but more people are
beginning to understand what our depression era grandparents tried to teach us
– only two things are certain; death and taxes.
Week Eleven
Do you remember when you first learned about
litmus paper to test the acidity/alkalinity of liquids? I do.
It was the fifth grade. I am now learning the political version of
litmus tests almost weekly. Some legislative
bills are like political litmus tests.
Remember the conscience bill that passed
last year. It is back. Last year the bill was represented to be
giving health care workers, other than doctors, the right to refuse service to
patients if the service required was a matter of conscience by way of a
“significantly held belief”, with regard to abortifacient
drugs and end of life decisions. Doctors
were excluded because it was represented that physicians already held immunity
and the ability to deny service on the basis of conscience. Consequences that I am aware of, have been;
the refusal to dispense birth control (non-abortifacient)
medications at health centers, and a refusal to fill a prescription for an abortifacient drug at a pharmacy. The problem in the latter example is that the
same drug also stops intrauterine bleeding; for which purpose it was prescribed. Allowing third parties to get between people
and their physicians or second guess confidential decisions was not a good idea
in 2010.
The new and improved 2011 version says that
physicians should not be required to comply with living wills or end of life
directives. That potentially means; if
your living will instructions include the directive, do not resuscitate, a
doctor could decide to resuscitate against your instructions and the converse
would also be true. I believe the intent
is a noble one. People could, and
perhaps do, produce end of life documents that essentially are suicide. The fear is that the physician is forced, by
complying with the document, to assist in the termination of life against his
or her will. I don’t believe that happens.
I will say again, I oppose abortion and I
abhor suicide. This 2011 bill and the
2010 version professed to be about neither one of those things but rather, the
rights of one person over another. The
constitution guarantees equal rights to all, even the unborn. The state should not be choosing sides in
these conscience issues.
In the anti-abortion bill before the Senate
the determination is made that because a fetus can feel pain as early as twenty
weeks, or sooner, no abortions should be permitted after the twentieth
week. I agree. The issue here is that there are some birth
defects so severe that the fetus may only live hours or days after natural
birth. Some parents and medical
facilities are choosing to terminate such pregnancies early rather than wait
for full term delivery.
Because the state (federal) has ruled
abortion a legal practice the state (
S1113 has become S1184, the third piece of the education
evolution. Please note that I did not
say reform or innovation. One of the
really great things about this education debate has been some really innovative
approaches to education have hit the web.
I have furnished a couple of the links in earlier letters. Luna proponents have said that they have been
listening but opponents have not offered alternatives. Nonsense!
If a tree falls in the woods and you ignore the sound does it mean that
no sound was made?
S1184 is a covert and
deceitful version of 1113. The effect
will still be larger classrooms or huge reductions in salaries for
teachers. Instead of the state making
the choice by changing the divisor (1113), the decision will be passed off to
the school districts by reducing the amount of money for salaries each year for
five years. You might remember that the
divisor is the teacher to student ratio for purposes of funding. If 1184 passes there will be few teachers
hired in
My two smallest granddaughters like me to
read a book called “The Circus Is Coming to Our Town.” The book says; step
right up and see the three ring show.
Innovation is needed, not evolution.
Week Ten
Recently my Katie called me to say that she
had seen me on television and that I had my “thinking face” on. I suppose we all have a thinking face, so put
yours on and watch this video clip:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html.
That is educational reform from the bottom
up. The concepts are not new
fundamentals, they are simply fundamental in a “back to the future” sort of
way, though sadly were not considered in the recent debates. The educational system will survive the
current assault in the name of reform even though it will emerge with a
different facade. Yes, the system will
survive and be transformed but the underlying problems will continue to plague
future outcomes because nothing in the Luna plan is foundationally systemic or
synergistic. As a state we seem
reluctant to decide what it is we really want the future of education to look
like, even though we seem pretty sure what we don’t want it to look like, or
cost.
Domestic Cervidae
refers to deer or elk raised on game farms.
The ongoing decades-old dispute generally is about elk
specifically. Most elk are grown like
cattle for food. Some are grown to be
put into enclosures and harvested by individuals who choose to hunt for their
animals with a greater assurance of success.
The enclosures are generally extremely large fenced areas where, once
through the gates, one would not be aware that the enclosure exists. The fences are designed to prevent egress
from the enclosure by the domestically raised animals, and ingress by the wild
animals.
There are numerous vocal factions in every
effort to modify statute or rules relating to domestic cervidae. Some object to the shooter bull operations
(enclosures) in general because it is not real “hunting”. Those who pay several thousand dollars per
animal to “hunt” have every right to conduct that activity done in private on
private property. The public concern has
more to do with whether animal ingress, egress or interaction occurs and the
potential for disease transmission to or from the wild herds. There is no organization representing a
majority of the elk producers. There is
significant disagreement among the various factions of producers on almost
every issue, particularly with regard to those operations that offer the
shooter options. Because there is no
consensus among producers or factional opponents, solutions to problems are
difficult.
S1085 is an attempt to resolve several
issues for the elk industry. The cost of administering a cervidae
program is significant for the producers and the Department of Agriculture
(ISDA). The current scope of the cervidae program requires multiple inspections; one of the
expected outcomes of 1085 is to create a certification program that would allow
the department to individualize a management plan for each operation. Each plan would be unique to each operation
because not all elk farms have the same risk or threat of domestic-wild
interaction. The unique ranch plans will
allow ISDA to decrease inspections and thus reduce costs while maintaining the
integrity of the program from a disease-prevention perspective.
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), Tuberculosis
and Brucellosis are all serious diseases that can be transferred between wild
and domestic animals. Current law has
required 100% testing of all domestic animals that die or are harvested. It is an impossible standard to meet because
on some large farms animals that die are not found or are not found in a timely
fashion. CWD can only be tested and
determined by using a specific portion of the brain. Brain tissue becomes non-viable for testing
within hours after death.
S1085 is now before the full Senate and then
to the House committee for consideration.
The Senate Agricultural Affairs committee has a lot of work remaining,
including Right to Farm legislation and confined animal legislation. Stay tuned.
Next week an update on S1113, the remaining education bill.
As
always, tcorder@senate.idaho.gov
Senator Tim Corder
www.senatortimcorder.com
208-332-1331
Follow
me on:
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/timcordersr>
Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/senatorcorder>
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=100275082&trk=tab_pro>
Week Nine
I made a mistake last
week. Okay. I made a lot of mistakes but one I can
correct. I said SCR103 declared the “Day
of Idaho Food” to be September 11,
2011. I should have said September 5, 2011. Celebrate
H222 is starting to generate
some interest. Some years ago the
legislature affirmed that public universities, colleges, and technical schools
could prohibit the possession of firearms on campuses even if one held a concealed
carry permit. H222 is an effort to
reverse that position and allow possession on public campuses. The bill does allow all public institutions
to prohibit the possession of firearms in undergraduate residential or housing
facilities. I have not heard rationale
for the internal conflict of the bill but I speculate the bill sponsors concede
the presence of younger individuals and the possibility of a more volatile
environment. I will wait to hear more
debate before making up my mind on this one.
At first blush it appears a yes vote will mean that I favor gun control
for the young where they live and favor no gun control for the young as long as
they are not in a residence and a no vote will mean I favor gun control. Huummm? Once again a
pro/anti gun conundrum.
This week the Medicaid
hearings are being conducted. All
Medicaid programs will take cuts across the board but it appears none will be
eliminated entirely – so far. The goal
is to get $35 million cut out of the Medicaid budget. That doesn’t sound so bad in relationship to
the nearly $500 million dollar budget. A
significant problem is that each state dollar represents two federal
dollars. The cuts are actually and
effectually twice as deep as they appear.
How did the Medicaid budget
get so out of control? There are a
number of social and economic reasons why the amount has crept up. “Giving a hand up” social benefits from
previous decades soon begat entitlements that begat benefits that begat
entitlements and so on. Then, a popular
There is something worse than
layers of governmental bureaucracy! It
is layers of private enterprise stacked on top of each other circulating, not creating,
dollars and growing in size and obscurity with each hungry circle. The specialization that should have produced
efficiency fragmented and produced other specialties that have become dependent
on each other and on the benefits and entitlements offered through state and
federal dollars.
Once again proving that
government should not attempt to manipulate market systems or try to create
competitive environments; proof to me at least.
Government cannot create wealth and should not attempt to pick winners
as Medicaid service providers or tax exemption beneficiaries.
The dangerous dog bill I
mentioned last week is S1143. This link http://legislature.idaho.gov/ will get
you to the bill center and you can study that or other bills and you can listen
in on committees as well as Senate and House floor debates from that site. S1143 is scheduled for hearing in the Senate
Agricultural Affairs on Thursday March 10.
The Idaho Kennel Club, Idaho Brittany Club, Idaho Humane Society,
Sheriff’s Association and others have all had input into the language of the
bill. I am interested in your comments
as well. The bill sets limits on damages
and gives more latitude to the courts in addressing behaviors by dogs. While giving more latitude to courts the bill
emphasizes personal responsibility. The
bill does not identify breeds as dangerous but rather focuses on
behaviors. The bill uses the behaviors
of dogs to potentially classify aggressive behavior from a dog as “at risk” and
further escalating and increasingly aggressive behaviors as “dangerous.” Such classifications would require court
action thus protecting dogs, their owners or handlers, and non-owners from
arbitrary determinations or actions.
Monday March 14th beginning at 1:30 a
hearing will be conducted on S1015 and S1016.
Those are the two bills that will, if passed, prevent the F&G
Department from defining ATV’s as “aids to hunting.” The bills will not open trails otherwise
closed by the land owners be they private or federal. The bills will, on open trails, force the
Department to treat all ATV riders the same whether hunting or
non-hunting. The hearings will be held
in the auditorium in the west wing of the capitol. You may watch and listen to the testimony at
this link, http://www.idahoptv.org/leglive/.
Click on “auditorium” and enjoy or come down and listen in person.
I do not want to portray the issue of
F&G enforcement of federal roads to be simple; it is not. There are several valid positions that must
be considered and as a result current policy reexamined. Far too often in these hallowed halls
decisions are made that prevent public debate.
Over the years I have been very critical of the process where bills get
suppressed just because a person in a position of authority decides the debate
should not occur.
For me, a primary issue is “rule
creep”. The legislature generally takes
care to be as succinct as possible in writing statute and simultaneously
empower agencies to promulgate administrative rules to fill in the blanks. For the record, my oxymoronic use of the word
succinct in this context is not lost.
My first year in the legislature, I sponsored and successfully passed
two bills that changed the way rules, and agencies, are held accountable. The first bill required an agency to disclose
to the legislature if a new or amended rule has a fiscal impact greater than
$10,000. The second change required the
agency to indicate the statutory occasion of a new or amended rule. In other words, agencies must demonstrate
that a new law or amendment has created the need for a change in rules. Statute trumps rules always.
“Aid to hunting” is a statutory term
carefully defined. In this case the
F&G used rules to define ATV’s as aids to hunting. Whether they are or not is a policy decision,
I believe. If they are, then the
inclusion of ATV’s should be first placed in statute as a policy of the state
followed by a rule to implement the policy; not the other way around. There was no statutory occasion for the rule
expansion in this case. This is a case
of an agency overstepping their authority.
F&G could have amended the statute first but they chose not to do
that and by making that choice they were usurping the lawful authority of the legislature
to set policy.
Director Groen
asked me directly if I didn’t believe the designation of ATV’s as aids to
hunting and the closures of trails was rightfully a
F&G Commission decision. I do
not. The Commissioners are appointed not
elected. The only policies that agencies
or commissions may lawfully make are those that have been directly delegated by
the legislature. There are far too many
examples of overstepping and usurpation of authority by agencies.
Also, a primary issue is the unequal treatment
of riders. Some trails are closed for
hunters to ride. If a hunter is camping
and carrying camp equipment or retrieving game then the trail is open. The same trail is open to non-hunters. F&G testimony is that only about 1% of
the time do their officers make a poor judgment call on enforcement. Guilty until proven innocent is not
acceptable even 1% of the time.
Truly, F&G is responsible for managing
game. Certainly, the increasing use of
ATV’s may have an impact on game movement.
Absolutely, disrespect for nature and our public lands shown by
increasing numbers of users, is out of control.
It is unfair when a person who walks to a remote area has their hunt
disturbed by an ATV. Common sense with
courteous and reasonable behavior is always in order and cannot be regulated
very well.
Each of those issues is valid and each has a
right to be heard. Then the elected
representatives should set the policy.
Then and only then the agency should enact the approved policy. Let’s have the debate first. That is what S1015 and S1016 are about – the
essence of the public debate.
Week Eight
From the sitcom “Office” comes
this teaching jewel;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yyKrS8jwSY.
If one teaches orienteering or driver training there is a message in the clip
about what not to do. Likewise, there are government policy implications as
well. Last Thursday the vote on S1110
affirmed our intent to spend $38 million dollars in the year 2013 on merit pay.
The $38 million will come right off the top of the education appropriation in
the year 2013. It will not matter what the economy is doing. It will not matter what other program must be
cut. It does not seem to matter that we have written a post dated check or does
it? Just like the video clip did we
follow the command; turn right, turn right now – U turn!!
A blogger commented that he was pleased that
Where to go from here? The success of S1113
will be dependent upon what changes are made; such as the divisor. Remember that the effect of increasing the
classroom divisor is an increase in student numbers per classroom. The effect
of increased numbers of students per classroom size is fewer teachers in the
state and the accumulated reduction of nearly 800 teachers. The money not spent
on teacher salaries and benefits would get us to the “what we can afford” number
for K-12 education. Additionally, we would have some technology funds available
to make improvements in every school and to offer on-line courses.
What happens then if the divisor is not
changed? Where does the money come from to meet the other demands of S1113 such
as the 1:1 technology requirements, the dual credit courses, the online credit
requirements, or the increase in teacher base salary? We still have that pesky
$38 million described in the first paragraph above. Do I sense an unfunded mandate
on school districts and a tax increase in the making? No, wait; we just gave locals more discretion
with S1108 and S1110 – didn’t we? What was that
problem we were trying to solve again?
Pardon me, the cynic in me forced me to
digress but I feel much better now. Where do we go from here is a good
question. Allow me just one more moment of digression if you please in James
Thurber. In Thurber’s short fable, “The Birds and the Foxes”, we are confronted
with this moral: Government of the orioles, by the foxes, and for the foxes,
must perish from the earth. The governed and those that govern must be cautious
what they ask for.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome in K-12
reforms, life in education will go on. Those who believe that magic occurs in
our classrooms every day must work to find a way to keep it there. The future
in education is literally and more profoundly than I have seen before, in our
hands. Time spent in planning repercussions or finger pointing is a waste of
time. Remembering what has happened and making plans for your future political
voice is important. More importantly and demanding immediate attention is the
support patrons give our teachers, administrators, and School Boards as they
struggle forward in making new policies.
Parents and grandparents must have a voice in the new policies.
I did not count the total emails and calls I
received about the Luna plan from outside District 22 but I did save all 126
emails from
Conservatism (Latin: conservare,
"to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the
maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and
gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they
are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and
seek a return to the way things were.
So says Wikipedia. It is curious to me that those of us who
voted no to the immediate upheaval of the current educational framework and
against the obligation for future spending of money we don’t have are now
accused of not fitting the conservative mold.
Enough introspective whining – sorry.
There was an attempt to revive the animal
cruelty bill from last year. The effort
involved just one component of the previous bill which was to get the
Department of Agriculture out of the enforcement business for animals not
defined as production animals.
Production animals have been defined as
those animals used in the production of food or fiber or the furtherance of such
production. Horses or dogs not meeting
the requirement of direct food or fiber production or not being raised for that
ultimate purpose would not be termed production animals. The Department of
Agriculture responds to nearly 500 complaints annually that allege animal
abuse. Ninety percent of the complaints
involve backyard horses. The statutory
standards and definitions of cruelty are the same for all animals. At issue is whether the Department should be
involved at all and if state resources or county resources are used in the
investigation. No changes are being
proposed with regard specifically to the provisions of the cruelty or abuse
statutes.
Other legislation I have been engaged with
is: S1015 and S1016 which relate to the
Department of Fish and Game and their ability to control ATV usage by
hunters. Those bills are awaiting
hearings next week. S1017 involves
employers that are also members of the National Guard or Reserves. The bill
prevents the employers Taxable Wage Rate, for unemployment compensation, from
negative adjustments because they are deployed and their employees receive
unemployment benefits in their absence.
S1052 amends state law to conform to a federal act. The federal act exempts military personnel
and their spouses from the obligation to pay Use tax due on vehicles brought
into the state previously registered in a state without a sales tax. The exemption would apply only to those
veterans not becoming permanent residents of
Week Seven
So I am now convinced by
citizen responses that the problem being solved by the education reform bills
is threefold. First, we don’t have the
money and the way we are now educating is too expensive. Second, some don’t like the results produced
by our current system of education.
Finally, make teachers more accountable by being able to terminate them
easily.
Let me state unequivocally
that I believe teachers are not to blame for our perceptions and having fewer
teachers will likely not help with points two or three above. Certainly, having eight hundred fewer
teachers seems to address the issue of funding.
On the surface the problems are solved with the three bills but only on
the surface.
I would prefer to take a
percentage reduction across the board to the public education budget, begin
implementation of some provisions, and begin pilot projects where implementation
of other reforms might be tested. After
three weeks of study on these bills we are only beginning to understand the
correct questions to ask with regard to these reforms. As we discover more questions we realize the
answers are not available. I would prefer
to bring together all the stakeholders in education together and ask the
questions and work at the answers then develop a plan of implementation. It could be done – I will not consider
otherwise.
But we are the now
generation. In 2006 we wanted property
tax reform – now. We got it, or so we
thought. I am not advocating that we
just throw money at the current system.
I am saying clearly that now may be the perfect time to begin a
transformation but it should be surgically precise, well planned, flawlessly
implemented and thorough. We should have
a 21st Century plan not just a plan for now.
Last week we talked a bit
about S1110 the pay for performance part of the education reform
legislation. I will copy here from the
Statements of Purpose as written by the bill’s sponsor. S1108 is the labor relations bill and is said
to accomplish the following:
·
Phasing out
tenure for all current and future teachers who have not yet earned it, to be
replaced by one- or two-year contracts.
·
Including
feedback from parents and objective measures of growth in student achievement
as a factor in the performance evaluations of professional staff.
·
Eliminating
seniority as a factor in reduction in force decisions.
·
Enhancing
accountability by giving principals more control over the new professional
staff assigned to their building.
·
Providing
liability insurance options for teachers.
·
Eliminating the
99% average daily attendance protection feature of the state funding formula
and replacing it with a 10% severance fee to be paid to any professional staff
whose positions must be eliminated due to lost enrollment.
·
Eliminating the
Early Retirement Incentive Program.
·
Limiting the
length of negotiated labor agreements to one year.
·
Eliminating
"evergreen" clauses from negotiated labor agreements.
·
Requiring that
unions provide documentation that they represent over 50% of employees in order
for collective bargaining to take place.
·
Limiting
collective bargaining to salaries and benefits.
·
Requiring that
all labor negotiations be conducted in public meetings
S1113 replaced S1109 and
offers the following statements of purpose:
·
Frees up funds to
cover the loss of FY11 one-time moneys and reallocate to other statutory
priorities within the legislation by increasing the average daily attendance
divisors in grades 4-12 over the next five fiscal years.
·
The State
Department of Education will post a fiscal report card for each school
district.
·
Each school
district will post its budget and master labor agreement online.
·
Creates a formula
for funding technology from the overall budget determined by the Legislature.
·
Creates a formula
for funding dual credit courses for eligible students from the overall budget
determined by the Legislature.
·
Creates a formula
for providing additional resources for school districts to implement the
state’s
increased graduation requirement for math and science courses, from the overall
budget determined by the Legislature.
·
Ensures every
·
Establishes a
high school graduation requirement of four credits of online courses, beginning
with the 9th grade class of 2012-2013.
·
Establishes a
fractional average daily attendance funding system for dual enrolled students
and students who enroll in online courses, if the school district has no
contract in place with the content provider. This replaces the third portion of
the three-part funding formula of the
·
Increases teacher
pay by gradually unfreezing the state salary reimbursement grid over the FY 2012
through FY 2014 time period.
·
Increases the
state’s minimum teacher salary to $30,000.
·
Allows public
post-secondary institutions to operate public charter high schools.
Week Six
What exactly is
broken? I once had a most excellent
employee who would encounter a problem with a machine and with great vigor
begin dismantling the machine to fix the problem. Somewhere in the process he would call me to
let me know he had a problem and was undertaking the repair. On one occasion I arrived on site to find
dismantled parts strewn around and began to inquire about the nature of the
problem. As we talked and I asked
questions about the things he had seen and heard and felt it became clear that
he was dismantling the parts of the machine where the symptoms were clearly
demonstrated. As we talked more and
began to analyze the variables as a whole we were able to discern the real
nature of the problem. What became even
clearer was that the origin of the symptoms, the real problem, was somewhere
else on the machine and easily fixable.
An hour later we had all the parts back together that shouldn’t have
been removed in the first place.
It won’t be so easy
to put dismantled parts of education back together if we get this wrong. As I have said before, parts of these bills
could be positive changes but are they reform measures for an outdated and
fatally flawed system or are they improvements to a basically solid system in
need of a 21st century facelift? First,
we ought to have enough conversation so that we know what the problems are and
if, in fact, we are focused on the source of problems or whether we are still
working on symptoms. Are we pushing a
solution until we find a problem that fits?
S1068 is the labor
relations bill. It creates a two year
rolling contract for teachers and eliminates the continuing contract known by
many as teacher tenure. The bill
eliminates the 99% provision for funding stability and replaces that stability
with a 10% buy out provision. The buyout
provision is authorized to break the two year rolling contract in the event a
reduction in force might be necessary.
There are other provisions but let’s focus on those two for a bit. Is teacher accountability the real
problem? Is teacher stability the real
problem? Are teacher unions the
problem? Is teacher performance the
basic and real problem?
Those who live in
Mountain Home know and understand the Airbase goes through some rather abrupt,
frequent and significant changes in personnel.
Funding to the school districts is based upon Average Daily Attendance
(ADA). Under current law the state has
an obligation to pay the school district 99% of the previous year’s total
funding obligation. The rationale is
that the District hired staff and made other obligations based on the
Most of us have
worked in at will labor environments.
Some of us have been self-employed our entire careers. No guarantees. That is not the same as teaching where
measurements of productivity are more complex and covert. In the Mountain Home museum Katie and I
recently read an original teacher contract from the early
Once again, what is the problem S1068 is seeking to
resolve? Has the union been too
successful in negotiating with our trustees?
If we can terminate teachers easily, can we be certain that we are
terminating the less effective teachers – how can we be certain? If we are not trusting administrators today
to “weed out” the less effective teachers, how can we trust them when they will
be teaching classes as well as being administrators? What will entice our brightest and best
students to become bright and effective teachers? If our teachers are to be at will employees
then will we pay them more; because we will be competing directly with all the
other at will employment opportunities?
So there is my challenge for each of you to
answer relative to S1068. What are the
problems you would like to solve in the labor relations department? In your view does S1068 really solve those
problems? What other problems can you
foresee that might be created? Week six,
continued.
In response to “what is
broken?” I received this very honest comment.
“But I believe that this
legislation has very little to do with the specifics or what is broke and
everything to do with our inaction to deal with the problem of getting our kids
an education and getting the bang for our buck that we have awoken to. This
legislation could just about say that bad teachers are to be put to death and
schools rated poor by parents are to be burnt to the ground, and it would be as
popular. Someone dying of thirst will drink salt water, eventually killing
themselves. The voters are dying of thirst and will take this versus nothing.
Hopefully it won’t kill us. There’s no time for a reasonable discourse and the
people won’t stand for nothing being done.
I don't like everything in the bill but at least it will light some
fires. And then we'll have to put them out. For lack of an alternative, if it
was me, I would vote for it in toto. If I could ditch
one thing it would be the laptops.”
I told meeting attendees last
week that the time to really make changes to the political climate as a whole
was last November. Significant Novembers
occur every two years. I don’t believe
reactionary civic actions are ever effectual retroactively.
So, is the real problem
apathy? Or, is the real problem
educating our children cost too much?
Or, is the problem that some Trustees, Administrators, and teachers have
not been sensitive to 21st century parental silent demands? A generation of parents now expressing the
above sentiment is the direct decade old product of our educational
system. Has the educational system
reaped, in parental expression, what it has sown? If so, we should not be surprised by the
sentiment that change – any change must be better and that future problems can
be worked out with the same bravado and thoughtfulness we are attacking them
today – right? I think we might find out
if that will work.
Preparing for next week’s
meeting on the 23d at Mountain Home we now have three bills to discuss. The pay-for-performance bill is S1110 and
still does not identify a funding source.
Much of this process is represented to be a matter of local control and
flexibility. Only one of the three
measurements for teacher performance is selected locally from a state provided
list of alternatives. It appears that
both “growth” and “excellence” performance measurements will be using the same
ISAT spring test. I am struggling with
the implications of how that works. It
also appears that each district might be competing against other
districts. In
Week four
I am working up to a plan of
our own.
The links below are two, very
lengthy bills regarding, encompassing the Luna plan. Enjoy. http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/studentsComeFirst/docs/SCF%20Labor%20and%20Entitlements.pdf and http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/studentsComeFirst/docs/SCF%20Modernization%20and%20Reform.pdf
Details are still coming daily about the
“plan” along with other elements of intrigue and impending economic
complications. It is like living within a novel and I can’t wait to turn the
next incredulous page. Every good story has some less savory parts so I must
remind myself that the same is true with government solutions. There are now
and there will be good and bad outcomes as these educational reform pages turn.
The debate about the future is a good thing. The debate about the elements of a
21st Century education delivery system is a bit late but welcome
none the less. The way we have always done it has never been a good enough
reason to continue. Dismantling something just because it is there lacks
foresight as well.
I continue to receive a few letters from
teachers about the Plan but hardly any from parents. Administrators and
teachers and some School Board members view the issues presented in the “Plan”
with their own bias and their tendency is to protect what they are familiar
with – that is a good thing; I think. See, my own bias just popped right out
there. All stakeholders in education who have seen parts of the plan
acknowledge there is some good in what they see. Most acknowledge there are
also some bad and some very bad ideas in the Plan.
In my seven years at this job I have received
fewer than a dozen questions or comments about the school system from parents
who were not also teachers. This is really
the time for me and other legislators to hear from parents and grandparents.
This is really the time for education and educators to tell a unified story of
the classroom and tell it just as it is – no editorializing. There are
successes in the way we educate and there are failures. This is not the union
story or the nonunion story because real results don’t care about those things.
The story we must tell is about what is really working and what is not working
from kindergarten all the way to the advanced degree. Change will inevitably
come. The when, how, and what change will look like ought to be a
responsibility we all share and it most certainly is a duty each generation
leaves to the next.
I
give Mr. Luna this; he had the courage to take action. It takes courage to
confront our own predispositions about the way things ought to be done. In that
dozen or so letters I referred to there was always criticism of teachers and
administrators. I chalk that up to the fact that most people have no clue what
happens in the classroom. Most people have not sat down with teachers and let
it all out and the reverse is also true. I am not trying to find blame for our
apathy and ignorance here because there is more than enough blame to go around.
I am working up to a plan of our own.
I was asked to hold public meetings to talk
about Mr. Luna’s plan. I said sure, but let’s wait until we know more. That was
the wrong answer. I think we should do that now. We are late but not too late.
Once again, teachers and administrators and school boards, it falls on you to
coordinate, plan, convene and implement.
I am prepared to come to meetings as soon as
any of you can put them together. I am prepared to come and meet so long as all
those who come intend to participate in a civil and meaningful debate. No
finger pointing allowed. No blaming administrators. No blaming teachers. No
blaming school board members. No blaming parents. No blaming Mr. Luna. Blame is
counterproductive and will divert our attention from solutions. Intend to look forward and plan how our
communities and schools will go forward together and I will be there to help
you. I don’t want a union meeting one night and a nonunion meeting the next. We
have no time, and I have no patience, for divisiveness. I want meetings with
people prepared to consider change and willing to work to be in command of
change not driven by it.
Here is part of our own plan. School board members attend local meetings and encourage every superintendent to do the same. Superintendents encourage every principal to participate. Principals engage every teacher and encourage them to participate in meetings and to contact every parent. Teachers speak personally with and visit, if possible, every family. Take your advocacy to the parents. Advocate for the future of education not for a favorite component. We must all demonstrate to the people of our communities that these discussions are not about wages or class size or tenure or performance. Our advocacy for education to parents must be personal to each of them and it must be about the future. Invite every parent to participate. Both the Luna Plan and our plan ultimately fall all on our teachers. Each of us does have a say in the future of education. Our plan, if successful, will result in hundreds if not thousands of informed voices speaking for the children and teachers. A hundred is better than a dozen. A thousand is better than a hundred.
Week Three
This James Thurber quote was
forwarded to me: "The brain of our
species is, as we know, made up largely of potassium, phosphorus, propaganda,
and politics, with the result that how not to understand what should be clearer
is becoming easier and easier for all of us."
I was reminded in one email
that in the last election “we the people” said; no new taxes and they meant
it! I was chastised in another mail for
allowing counties to increase fees and for not being in touch with “the real
world”. I have been admonished to cut
income or sales taxes, or both and that such an action would create business
activity; even though no data that makes such a claim survives peer criticism.
As you know an increase in
tobacco tax is being considered. Also
proposed is a $10 increase in registration fees to go to the Idaho State Police
and
If a tax exemption is granted
to an entity is that a new tax? The
imaginary town of
Conversely, when a tax
exemption is repealed is that a new tax?
The former recipient of the exemption would certainly be paying more but
every other tax payer will be getting tax relief by shifting the tax to someone
else.
Are increases in user fees a
new tax? Cities and counties have
specific funds within their budgets for a defined purpose or enterprise. Weeville had an
enterprise fund for solid waste. Pilco added costs to the collection of garbage and the land
fill. Weeville
city council must manage the account so that cost equals revenue. When the additional costs from Pilco deplete the fund prematurely the council increases
the user fee so that once again cost equals revenue. Pilco pays a bit
more as expected but the other rate payers whose usage remained exactly the
same now pay more.
Stay tuned. What about specialty courts? What are they and what are they doing to help
us and is an increase in funding warranted?
Some final thoughts on Weeville are in order before moving on. My mythical city was intended to help us all
ask questions and understand some complex causal relationships. Weeville was not an
attempt to provide exhaustive tax solutions.
A primary salient point bears emphasis.
A proper role of government is to provide infrastructure and services so
that people and businesses can be successful.
It is not a proper role of government, in my opinion, to choose which of
those people or which of those businesses will succeed at the expense of the
others. Government manipulation of free
and open market systems for even the noblest cause will result in artificial
inequities. Exemptions for some are tax
increases to someone else. It is, at
best, disingenuous to ask government to bring business in using tax schemes
while demanding reductions in taxes and less government.
Specialty courts are
relatively new to
Some unfortunate results of
recessions are an increase in alcohol or substance abuse, more domestic
confrontations with families in crisis and an increase in mental health related
crisis. In the past, mental health
crises resulted in jail, or prison or a state institution. In the past, families were separated and
traumatized by crisis and inevitably repetitious because the court looks at the
effect and not the cause. In the past,
substance abuse offenders were merely adjudicated and were terminally
repetitive. The district civil courts
appropriately meet out justice.
Specialty courts were designed to create and implement innovative and
personal solutions and eliminate the repetitive cycle. Specialty courts keep people out of jails and
prisons and hospitals. Specialty courts
keep families together and bring available resources together in one place to
change lives permanently, restore productivity, and teach self reliance with
personal accountability.
In 2009 87% of participants
in Drug/DUI and Mental Health courts successfully graduated from or are
participating in their courts with jobs, homes and families intact. Only 13% of offenders required retention in
the traditional court. Only 18% of
graduates repeated their offense as opposed to 37% in the non-specialty court
group. So with success rates like that
why don’t we put all offenders in the specialty court? It is voluntary for participants and each
must agree to stringent standards, testing, and supervision – that is one
reason. Other reasons are: limited
judicial capacity and costs to implement.
Specialty courts require more staff than just the judge for testing and
monitoring behaviors. Even with the additional
costs; counties and the state save thousands of dollars on each person that
graduates or participates and each community and family gains
immeasurably. Still, the transition to
the more cost effective method is difficult and sadly, problem solving courts
are more vulnerable to pressures to cut fees or limit expansion. More details can be found about specialty
courts at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/dcourt/Annual%20Report%202009%20ProblemSolvingCourts.pdf
.
I have had concern expressed
regarding the announcement by Chief Justice Eismann
that a plan is being considered to increase the cost of marriage licenses by
$20 in order to raise an additional $148,000 for the court system. That is not correct. Please note that the plan is not sponsored by
the court. The plan was offered as one
of several alternative mechanisms that the Idaho Legal Aid Service might
consider and could use so that they will continue to offer legal services to
low income citizens. If brought forward
the legislation will be sponsored by Idaho Legal Aid. Idaho Legal Aid receives approximately 75% of
their funding from federal programs.
They use a sliding scale for fees based on ability to pay and private
funding for the balance. Idaho Legal Aid
is a non-profit organization. Legal Aid
offers a great many services. You may
find more information at: http://www.idaholegalaid.org/. The need for legal services is growing and
equal access by all is the basis of justice.
The bar association and the court have programs to help those who cannot
afford assistance. Additionally, every
lawyer that I know has a number of clients they serve without pay.
As always. 599-0427
tcorder@senate.idaho.gov
Senator Tim Corder
www.senatortimcorder.com
208-332-1331
Follow me on:
Week Two
I have received questions with respect to
the overall government budgeting process.
I am not surprised that many find it complicated and confusing. The process seems designed to remain
opaque. It is not just state
government. Even the county budgeting
process is unnerving and invites distrust.
Making a budget for and spending money belonging to the public ought to
be a thoughtful and arduous process – and so it is.
I will answer some of the questions
submitted and see if we can all learn a bit more about the entire process. The state, counties and cities all hold
budget hearings. The public is always
welcome and invited to those annual and very open meetings. The meeting dates are published. The legislature is beginning to conduct their
budget hearings now Monday through Friday mornings in the Joint Finance and
Appropriation Committee (JFAC). As I
said last week, the counties and cities begin creating their new budget with
last year’s budget and are able to add three percent as a potential starting
place for the amount of money to spend.
Citizens are able to offer suggestions and rationale for change or no
change. Citizens may object to any
portion and may offer alternative revenue and spending suggestions.
Once the budgets are fixed it is difficult
to reopen and amend approved budgets.
The state must reconvene the legislature to change a budget. While easier for
Why can’t money be carried over to the next
year rather than spent on something not needed?
Counties and cities have budget categories they call funds. There may be a bit more latitude for them to
carry money forward. There are also
sound reasons for them to do so. The
state has some ability to do that as well with things like the building fund or
rainy day funds. Agencies are a
different critter. Because the general
budget expires at the end of each fiscal year there should be zero dollars left
to spend. Don’t ask for what you don’t
need; spend what you ask for – next year is a new budget and it might be
different. We sometimes forget that
asking for less is an option. Remember
last week’s explanation of a foregone balance?
Do you suppose that if a Commission or Council were to reach back and
reclaim foregone spending authority and increase their budget by five percent
or more that any one of us would remember the years we paid less than three
percent? Not likely – we will rail about
the 5% increase. So even on the local
level there is very little practical flexibility. The public is not generally tolerant of
growing and storing large sums of money within agencies to be spent later. The obligations and priorities of any
lawfully elected authority extend only forward and only until the next lawfully
elected authority is installed. So the question represents the typical Catch
22. State agencies that have been frugal
and prudent and made efforts, within their authority, to carry over a reserve
have seen those monies taken away by recessionary cutbacks and then find
themselves facing a shortfall the next year.
Generally, there are hundreds, if not thousands,
of laws and possibilities and approaches and “right ways” to budgeting and
spending that are all legal and proper.
The laws are designed to provide a framework for local flexibility. Sometimes that very flexibility, often
looking very much like chaos among agencies or even departments in city and
county government, is what confuses us the most. There is no “one place” in government where
all the answers or possibilities or “right ways” exist or are the same. If you ask the same question to ten different
people you will likely get ten different answers – and each will likely be
correct. Individuals who might have
worked in one department in county government for twenty years may know little
about the flexibility within the law in another department.
Confusing – yes. Transparent – yes if you look. Aggravating – most
certainly. Democracy
– absolutely glorious. Does it
look like government spending is out of control – probably? If you really want the answers; be prepared
to read a lot and ask your city or county for their annual financial reports
and participate in your local budget hearings.
Keep asking questions until you get the answers. State financial reports are available through
the state Controller. If you need a
contact point let me know and I will get it for you.
As always.
Schools – Mr. Luna’s plan.
Philosophical perspectives
first. Clearly, the legislature
cannot continue to push costs to the local districts and reasonably expect
those needs to be met locally and remain commensurate with federal
standards. Clearly, a number of people
still believe there is waste and inefficiency within the existing educational
system; they can’t point to it but they hired Mr. Luna to fix it. Cleary, we cannot continue to dismantle our educational
system, including the University and research components, in a piece meal
fashion. If the time is now for a
complete overhaul then let’s do it, but do it right and do it with enough
flexibility to still be relevant throughout the 21st century. Our ongoing cannibalization of the current
system is becoming more intolerable to educators, patrons, students and
legislators alike. It’s a bit like
raising tobacco tax to get people to quit smoking. Something must change so I am going to try
and keep an open mind about possibilities.
Some areas of the state will vote to
increase taxes on themselves but I suspect most will have difficulty. More money without reform, whatever reform
looks like, will only maintain the painful status quo? State revenue enhancements appear out of the
question. Some districts will
successfully pass bonds and others not, potentially creating an
unconstitutional inequity among districts.
What appears clear is that a complete
financial analysis has not been presented by the Department of Education. The State Board of Education has not seen
details of the plan yet nor have complete budgets been forthcoming to the joint
finance committee. The “Plan” seems very
fluid and appears to be just an outline with substance being added daily. The Superintendent’s Association and the
Idaho Education Association have been excluded from participating in what the
overhaul might look like. We the people
have charged the state superintendent with the responsibility of oversight and leadership. Certainly, consensus is not a requirement of
governance or leadership but I am comforted when leadership brings together
diverse opinions and embraces ideas in ways that empower outcomes.
I had intended to have an opinion about the
plan by today but there are simply not enough details at this point. I will do a better job when I know more. For now and until we get more information let
the following suffice. A computer to
everyone changes the meaning of “the dog ate my homework” to any number of
different excuses. I believe those
challenges are manageable however and potentially very positive; but then I am
a guy who remembers not having a TV, casting out 9’s, adding on paper, having
at least two grades per class, learning the meaning of digital, and my first
powerful computer that had less memory than my watch today. Some reform is in order but there is no
evidence that starting from the ground up will have better results. Pay for performance sounds good but no
consistent national data exists confirming how to do that fairly and
beneficially. I spend more time in
classrooms than most people and I know that a parent spending no time in a
classroom cannot evaluate a teacher based on what their child reports. Allowing attrition to reduce teacher work
force by one thousand teachers over five years and using the accumulated
savings to buy technology today – well; that is just not the way I was taught
math. There is some evidence being
discussed that shows class size below sixteen (grades 4 and above) students
affects performance measurably with no measurable difference above that. Large districts can certainly manage
classroom size differently than small districts. For Horseshoe Bend,
There is more information coming out
today. There is a defined process for
change that requires input from citizens, the legislature, the State Board and
others. I will keep you informed along
the way but please participate in the process at every opportunity you have –
that is the best strategy. This may be
Mr. Luna’s plan now but the plan that gets enacted will become our plan. Stay tuned in.
Week One
What
does one say to a tax commission chairman who tenders his resignation two days
before the session begins? It’s about
time!
Citizens
wanted an internal audit of the tax commission because they believed, courtesy
of the media, that some people were getting special sweetheart good-ole-boy
deals. Citizens believed, courtesy of
the media, that the governance structure at the commission was all wrong. Citizens believed that the audit they were
requesting would out the rascals and then corrective action would be
taken. Whistle blowers blew. Legislators legislated. The year was 1997 but
it sounds all too familiar.
1997
in
All
four tax commissioners were in 1997 and are today appointed by the Governor,
two republicans and two democrats, but the 1997 change allowed the Governor to
designate who would be chairman – a double appointment. The Senate confirms gubernatorial
appointments. However, the Senate does
not confirm the appointment as chairman. Prior to the statute change in 1997
the four commissioners met and chose among them which would serve as liaison to
the Governor and spokesperson for the commission. Those additional duties constituted the
chairmanship. Apart from those
additional duties all commissioners were equal and equally responsible.
I
understand a new and improved structure is contemplated by the Governor and
others. In my opinion, structure is not
the problem. Credibility or more
accurately, lack of credibility, is the problem and that is directly dependent
upon who constitutes rather than on what constitutes structure.
Paying
taxes should be painful. Tax collectors
should work for the people as a whole and should be zealous, diligent and
relentless in their efforts to get every dollar possible for the people
collectively. That is what we pay them
to do. On the other hand there ought to
be strong advocates for the individual citizen.
We want advocates that know the law and who also have the ability to set
aside the law, on individual and case by case basis, to achieve fairness and
mete out an occasional act of mercy. We
demand accountability for each of those decisions. We demand fairness. We demand disclosure – but we can’t have
that. Individual confidentiality must be
protected. So we are suspicious of the outcome.
Auditors
should always affirm the state is getting taken to the cleaners. Accountants whose clients had to pay more
should always attest to the inequity of “the system.” Advocates should always cry that individuals
are paying too much and not getting fair treatment. Two different groups of people with two
different skill sets and two very different goals – as it should be.
Depending
on whether one is on the paying end or the receiving-a-mercy end our opinion of
the tax commission changes. Everyone
that is not receiving will no doubt find reasons for believing the tax
commission is corrupt. The reality is that
they do make mistakes on both sides and they will continue that tendency, no
matter what structure they are formed under.
I am comforted to know that there is also an advocate in that same
office where I can go and make my case and get justice, and yes; sometimes
mercy. The same applies to you. It is imperative that we trust that the same
rules apply equally and always to each of us.
It is imperative that the hand of mercy be available to each of us and
that each of us appreciates that it is also reluctantly and consistently
available to our neighbors.
Three
things are required of our tax commission regardless of the governing
structure. It is impossible to legislate
for their presence but we can demand them in practice: credibility,
credibility, and credibility.
What happens when you disagree with the tax
collector about how much you owe? If you disagree with your county on property
tax values your first stop is the county assessor. The assessor has limited
authority to make some adjustments and the obligation to inform you of your
right to appeal. Should you appeal the decision of the assessor you are
appealing to the Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization is an
administrative description of the Board of County Commissioners. The Commissioners
call a meeting and convene as the BOE.
Commissioners hear every appeal and render a decision. The BOE has the
authority to overturn or sustain the assessor’s decision.
Still not happy with the
result? The Board of Tax Appeals is the next step. The Board is
independent from the Tax Commission as required by law. The Board has three
appointed commissioners that get paid two hundred dollars per day for each day
they hold hearings plus expenses. The three Commissioners represent the entire
state and hear appeals for relief involving all classes of taxation. At least
two Commissioners must agree on any outcome.
The Board has authority to resolve each case brought before them.
Citizens or agencies always have the right to further litigate their grievance
through the court system.
Perhaps a brief tax tutorial is once again
in order. The state requires counties to reassess properties at least once
every five years. The state does a periodic check of all counties to verify
that assessed property values lie within reasonable current market values. The
state assesses railroads and utilities within counties and calls those
centrally assessed properties. Revenues
from centrally assessed properties are sent to the counties not the state.
Property owners are notified of assessed values mid-year – each year. The
values we receive in the mail more accurately reflect what was happening in the
market in the calendar year preceding the most recent fiscal year – plain talk:
values are about eighteen months old. That is why our property values seemed
high when notices arrived in our mail and house values all around us were
falling. It is also why values seemed lower when houses all around us were
selling for more than they were worth a few short years ago.
Local taxing entities are limited to a
maximum increase of three percent.
Officials may take the three percent or take less and retain the
difference in a foregone balance account.
For example: county officials
determine they need only a 2.5% increase for year X. 3% minus 2.5% equals .5% to be carried over.
On year XX the district finds an additional need so they now have available 3%
plus .5% foregone balance or 3.5% total capacity to increase taxes. Additionally, rate caps apply to some taxing
districts and fund categories; if the rate cap is met no additional monies may
be levied. This is complicated I understand but it is very important. What I
have just told you has great impact when assessed property values begin to drop
or are eliminated through exemptions such as a proposed elimination of Personal
Property tax.
Example:
I have pledged to myself to keep these
letters shorter and uncomplicated and informative. I will try for two out of three anyway.
As
always, tcorder@senate.idaho.gov,
timcordersr@gmail.com, www.senatortimcorder.com, 599-0427
cell, 332-1331 office.
__________________________________________________________________________________