Supreme Court Ruling Issued; SB 19 Inadequate and Inequitable

Oct 2, 2017 by

The Kansas Supreme Court issued its decision in the Gannon School Finance Lawsuit dealing a blow to the State and ruling that SB 19 is both inadequate and inequitable.

“As part of today’s ruling, it was noted that generations of Kansas students have been shortchanged.  The Court has made it clear that public education funding is no-longer to be a game of political football.”  Mark Farr, Kansas NEA President.

While the issue was initially focused on adequacy (there had been a ruling on equity last year), the Legislature made changes to several parts of the school finance formula that created additional equity problems.

On equity, the court ruled against four provisions in SB 19:

  1. Changes to capital outlay that expand the use of these funds for insurance expenditures,
  2. Changes to LOB that imposed different procedures on some school districts in accessing the maximum LOB,
  3. Changes to LOB that altered the equalization formula, and
  4. Changes to at-risk funding that provided that if a district had fewer than 10% of students on free lunch, it would receive funding as if it did have 10%.

The Court also noted that “equity” does not mean “equal.” The Court said,

As our test for measuring equity under Article 6, “School districts must have reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort.” Gannon I, 298 Kan. at 1175. This test does not require that wealth-based disparities between districts be measured under a zero-tolerance test or other mathematically precise standard because “equity [is] not necessarily the equivalent of equality.” Gannon II, 303 Kan. at 710; see Gannon I, 298 Kan. at 1180, 1188. Instead, “[t]o violate Article 6, the disparities . . . must be unreasonable when measured by our test.” 298 Kan. at 1180.

On adequacy the Court ruled that the overall funding in the bill was indeed inadequate. The bill provided for a base state aid amount of $4006 in 2017-18, $4128 in 2018-19, and an inflation adjustment in the out-years. The Court declined to give a dollar amount that would meet constitutional muster but did indicate that the base amount provided by the state without creating more reliance on local levies was what was important.

The Court has given the Legislature a strict timeline for devising a remedy.

The ruling does not require a special legislative session (although it would be allowed). Instead, the ruling sets this timeline:

No later than April 30, 2018, the parties’ concurrent briefs addressing any legislative remedies of constitutional infirmities will be due in this court. Response briefs will be due May 10, and oral arguments will be conducted on May 22 at 9 a.m. The court’s decision will be communicated by June 30. Exceptions to this schedule will be made to accelerate the deadlines as needed in order to consider earlier remedial legislation—created by special session or otherwise.

In other words, the State has time to work but they won’t be permitted to drag things out.

In an interesting twist, the Court also suggested that the State could help itself by “showing its work.”

The State would help its case by “showing its work.” Gannon II, 303 Kan. at 743. This exercise involves considerably more than what it presented to this court in the instant appeal and in Gannon III. See 304 Kan. at 515. The State should identify other remedies that the legislature considered but, more important to meeting its burden, explain why it made its particular choice for reaching the constitutional standards for adequacy and equity.

“Educators have been calling for the Kansas Legislature to fully fund public schools according to the state constitution.  Taking a bi-partisan approach to tax policy and school funding is the only way to achieve full constitutional funding for the future.” Mark Farr, Kansas NEA President.

READ THE FULL DECISION HERE

 

read more

Red Alert on Healthcare

Sep 21, 2017 by

From Alliance for a Health Kansas:

Just two months ago you helped stop reckless legislation that would have stripped health coverage from millions of Americans.

But a handful of Senators in Washington, intent on taking health care coverage away from millions and remaking Medicaid, have cooked up a new bill.

The latest ACA repeal bill is called “Cassidy-Graham” and — like each of its predecessors — it eliminates patient protections in the insurance market and slashes federal funding for the Medicaid program.

How will it affect Kansas? Here are a few low-lights:

  1. It will end our opportunity to expand KanCare, costing our state billions — much more than we would ever gain under any version of repeal and replace.
  2. It will gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
  3. It will cut coverage and services for those who rely on Medicaid — primarily seniors, people with disabilities, and children.
  4. It will result in tens of thousands of Kansans, and millions of Americans, losing their health coverage.

KS Senators Moran & Roberts

Call Senators Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts. Find the office closest to you, tell them to VOTE NO on Cassidy-Graham, and urge them to get back to work on bi-partisan solutions to improve the ACA.

Senator City Phone
Pat Roberts Dodge City 620-227-2244
Jerry Moran Hays 785-628-6401
Jerry Moran Manhattan 785-539-8973
Jerry Moran Olathe 913-393-0711
Pat Roberts Overland Park 913-451-9343
Jerry Moran Pittsburg 620-232-2286
Pat Roberts Topeka 785-295-2745
Pat Roberts Wichita 316-263-0416
read more

Related Posts

Share This

Kansas and the DACA Reversal

Sep 13, 2017 by

President Donald Trump with Kansas’ Kris Kobach

First, as a refresher course, what is DACA?

DACA stands for “Deferred Action for Child Arrivals” and is intended to benefit children who came to the United States as children in the company of their parents who are undocumented immigrants. These children are usually referred to as “Dreamers” because of legislation known as “The Dream Act” that would allow them to attend colleges without fear of deportation.

Those who qualify under DACA are allowed work and/or study in the United States without fear of deportation. To be considered the applicant must meet all of the following requirements:

  1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
  4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
  5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
  6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
  7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The intent is to protect children who were brought to this country illegally by their parents. For many of these children, the United States is the only country they know. DACA does not protect their parents.

With the inability of Congress to agree on the Dream Act, DACA was enacted under an executive order by President Obama.

President Trump has rescinded Obama’s executive order with a delay of six months ostensibly to give Congress time to work out a statutory solution to this issue. Should Congress fail to act, all current DACA beneficiaries would be subject to deportation – and making matters more frightening for them, the federal government holds a lot of identifying data on these young men and women due to the data collected in the application process.

Where is the Kansas Congressional Delegation on DACA?

While Governor Brownback was a supporter of the Dream Act while serving as a United States Senator, the same cannot be said of the current Kansas Congressional Delegation.

Our members of Congress can be quoted from their own press statements.

Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins (R-KS CD 2), who is not running for re-election, said, “In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with my colleagues to create a permanent solution through the legislative process with input from Kansans in the 2nd District.” Unfortunately, Jenkins was vague on what a solution might be.

Congressman Kevin Yoder (R-KS CD 3) parroted the remarks of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions when he said DACA “has served as a magnet, bringing tens of thousands of new immigrants, exacerbating our illegal immigration challenges, and creating a humanitarian crisis at the border.” Nothing could be further from the truth. No one enters the United States illegally because they might get their children enrolled in the DACA program.

Congressman Ron Estes (R-KS CD 4) praised Trump’s action and said “This decision gives Congress time to fix our broken immigration system. Congress can do this by securing our borders, reviewing our immigration process, and not providing amnesty to those who disregard our nation’s laws.” DACA beneficiaries, contrary to Congressman Estes’ assertion, were brought to this country by their parents and must prove in the DACA application process that they have not broken any of our nation’s laws.

Only Congressman Roger Marshall (R-KS CD 1) indicated in his press release that it was important to protect these young people. Marshall said, “Our resources, especially as they pertain to deportation, must remain focused on getting rid of bad people who present a danger to the American citizen – not a young person who is here simply due to circumstance. To date, 787,000 young people have legally registered with the U.S. government and have shown their willingness to follow our laws. We cannot allow that information to now be used against them in reverse order.”

Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) issued a brief statement in support of the Trump’s decision and calling on Congress to act. We cannot find any statement on the issue from Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS).

As one would expect, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor), applauded the decision and called on Congress not to act and instead move to deport all of the Dreamers. He said on “Fox and Friends” that he supported repealing DACA, and that he opposes replacing it with a congressionally enacted plan.”It’s a tough job market and those in Congress who are saying, ‘Mr. President, don’t get rid of this DACA amnesty,’ should remember, our young U.S. citizens are having a really tough time,” Kobach said. “Why would you want to give an amnesty to 1.7 million young illegal aliens to compete against them?” The evidence shows that DACA recipients are not taking jobs from citizens and actually contribute enormously to the economy of the nation.

For more information on this issue, we would suggest you read the following articles:

CNN has provided a comprehensive Q&A on DACA: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/daca-dreamers-immigration-program/index.html

The Washington Post addresses five myths about DACA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-daca/2017/09/07/e444675a-930c-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html?utm_term=.f417090e4571

Newsweek provides 15 points on DACA statistics: http://www.newsweek.com/dreamers-daca-statistics-trump-deadline-657201

The National Education Association statement on DACA: http://neatoday.org/2017/09/05/daca-nea-response/?_ga=2.147709247.967952866.1504886469-21933477.1504886469

The National PTA statement on DACA: https://www.pta.org/newsevents/newsdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=5363

The National School Boards Association statement on DACA: https://www.nsba.org/newsroom/nsba-statement-trump-administration%E2%80%99s-decision-rescind-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals

read more

Court Hears Arguments in School Finance

Jul 18, 2017 by

(AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

The Kansas Supreme Court heard arguments from the State and the Plaintiffs in the Gannon school finance lawsuit this morning. It was wrapped up before noon at which time the Court said they would take the arguments under consideration. How long that consideration will last is anyone’s guess, but they have said they will act in an expedited manner.

Most observers believe the state had the harder time before the Court. Justices pressed the attorneys for the state, Stephen McAllister and Jeff King, about why the legislature chose to base funding levels on the “successful schools model” even going so far as to suggest this was a decision based not on appropriate funding but backing into a lower cost model.

Justices also appeared skeptical about the state’s reliance on LOB (local option budget) funds as foundational funding for schools. This has been a position advocated for by Rep. Clay Aurand (R-Belleville).

Asked whether or not the Court should let the state off the hook- so to speak- King called upon the Court to allow the new law three years to see if it could do the job. The Justices appeared to have little interest in waiting three years to decide if the legislature has done the right thing.

There seemed to be little questioning on the school finance model adopted in SB 19 except for a couple of questions regarding equity. Specifically concerning the expansion of what could be paid for under capital outlay and the 10% floor for at-risk funding allowing districts with fewer than 10% free and reduced lunch students to receive at-risk funding as if they had 10%.

Now the waiting starts. We will watch for the Court’s decision over the next few weeks. For more reaction on today’s hearing, see the following news report.

read more

Supreme Court: Schools May Open Under New Finance Bill

Jun 20, 2017 by

http://www.workingjournalistpress.com/articles/170302/Gannon-Case-Supreme-Court-opinion-released.php

The Kansas Supreme Court yesterday announced that Kansas public schools will be allowed to open under the finance plan passed by the Legislature in Senate Bill 19. This is not, however, to mean that they believe the new formula to be adequate or constitutional. That decision will be made later.

In making the announcement, the Court set July 18 as the hearing day for the new formula. The State will argue that SB 19 fully complies with the Gannon decision, while the plaintiffs will argue that it is inadequate in funding and contains a number of provisions that jeopardize equity. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court will deliberate before making a ruling on the issues at hand. While the Court has said they will expedite this case, there is no telling how long their deliberations might take before a decision is reached.

Obviously, this means that there will not be a July special legislative session. If the Court rules against the State, there is still the possibility of a fall special session or the Legislature could be given the 2018 regular legislative session to address any shortcomings.

read more

It Really is Sunrise in Kansas!

Jun 7, 2017 by

Good happens!

House and Senate majorities on Monday night passed comprehensive tax reform (SB 30). They restored the three income tax brackets and repealed both the glide path to zero and the LLC income tax loophole. They also began the restoration of income tax deductions that help middle and low income families, including medical expenses, child and dependent care expenses, and property taxes paid.

The debate and bill passage were not easy. Some legislators are dug firmly into the position that all taxes and all government services are bad – one Senator even suggested that if you need a service like education, then you should pay for it yourself. But in the end, a majority in both the House and Senate voted to support tax reform. Unfortunately, those majorities were not strong enough to support an effort to override a veto. They fell one vote short in the Senate and 15 in the House.

Governor Brownback did not take long to announce that he would veto the plan because, in his world, his tax experiment is working. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he truly believe his experiment is working.

He vetoed the bill on Tuesday and that night, the Senate took up a motion by Senate Vice President Jeff Longbine (R-Emporia) to override the veto and pass the bill. A roll call vote in the Senate is conducted by calling each Senator’s name and they respond Aye or No. It was the last Senator called who put the bill over the top on the override. Senator Rick Wilborn (R-McPherson), who had voted No on Monday night, voted Yes on the override assuring that it passed.

Those voting NO on the override were Republicans Alley (Winfield), Baumgardner (Louisburg), Fitzgerald (Leavenworth), Hilderbrand (Galena), Lynn (Olathe), Masterson (Andover), Olson (Olathe), Petersen (Wichita), Pilcher-Cook (Shawnee), Pyle (Hiawatha), Suellentrop (Wichita), Tyson (Parker), and Wagle (Wichita).

The veto message then went to the House, where Tax Committee Chairman Steven Johnson (R-Assaria) made the motion to override the veto.

Again, the debate focused mostly around the idea that Kansas “has a spending problem, not a revenue problem,” despite the fact that revenues continue to decline and we have had multiple rounds of budget cuts since 2012.

Moving the House to override was a much bigger task than in the Senate since we had to find 15 members willing to override in addition to the 69 who voted for the bill initially. In the House, roll call votes are done when legislators press a red (for no) or green (for yes) button on their desks. Their names light up in red or green on the vote board. The initial vote came up with 84 Yes votes – just enough to override. Some legislators explained their votes and then four more moved to the Yes column. The final House vote was 88 yes to 31 no.

One legislator, Joe Seiwert (R-Pretty Prairie), voted “present.” Rep. Shannon Francis (R-Liberal) did not vote. Four others – John Barker (R-Abilene), Trevor Jacobs (R-Fort Scott), Les Mason (R-McPherson), and Jack Thimesch (R-Spivey) – were on excused absences.

Those voting NO on the override were Republicans Arnberger (Great Bend), Awerkamp (St. Mary’s), Blex (Independence), Burris (Mulvane), Carpenter (Derby), Claeys (Salina), Corbet (Topeka), Delperdang (Wichita), Dove (Bonner Springs), Ellis (Meriden), Esau (Olathe), Garber (Sabetha), Highland (Wamego), Hoffman (Coldwater), Houser (Columbus), Huebert (Valley Center), Humphries (Wichita), Jones (Wellsville), Landwehr (Wichita), Osterman (Wichita), Powell (Olathe), Rahjes (Agra), Resman (Olathe), Schwab (Olathe), Eric Smith (Burlington), Sutton (Gardner), Vickrey (Louisburg), Weber (Wichita), Whitmer (Wichita), and Williams (Augusta). Also voting NO was Democrat Henderson (Kansas City).

This action puts tax reform to rest for the session. But there is still more to be accomplished.

School Finance Passed But Will It Be Vetoed?

The school finance plan has passed, as we reported yesterday, and is sitting on the Governor’s desk awaiting his decision. So far, Brownback has not given any indication as to whether or not he will sign the bill and let it be sent on to the Supreme Court for review.

While KNEA does not believe the bill will meet constitutional muster, it is important that action be taken on it as quickly as possible. If he intends to veto it, he needs to do it now so the legislature can either override the veto or get to work immediately on an alternative. If he intends to sign it, it should be done now to give the Supreme Court time to review the bill and hear arguments on its pros and cons.

Hopefully a decision will be made soon. Perhaps even before you read this!

What makes us think this bill (SB 19) will not satisfy the Court? Primarily, we believe it will not meet adequacy of overall funding. While most of the policy forms a solid finance formula, the funding amount is far below what the State Board has indicated is needed and will certainly not be adequate in the eyes of the plaintiffs.

Additionally, there are legitimate concerns about how some provisions will impact required equalization. Last year, the Court sent the legislature back to fix equalization issues. This year, some are questioning new provisions regarding the false base for LOB which, under the bill, grows with the CPI-U and a provision on expanded spending authority under capital outlay. The Court may agree that these provisions are disequalizing and reject them. It is unclear whether the Court could separate them from the whole bill or not.

Longest Session Ever?

Well, not yet. The longest Kansas Legislative Session ever was the 2015 session, which lasted 114 days. Today is day 110 for the 2017 session so we’re pushing it now.

We believe it will be over before breaking the record, but it really depends on how the Governor deals with that school finance bill. If it’s vetoed, we could very well move beyond 114.

 

read more