2009 SC Legislative Wrap-up (BUDGET & SPENDING)

In December and January the Voice posted summaries of legislation introduced in the South Carolina State Legislature.

Here, seven months later, is an overview of the status of those and other bills relating to the budget and state spending practices.

(Also look for upcoming reviews of K-12 Education bills, Charter School bills, and Tax bills):

S. 2 Remove and replace state spending cap

This legislation revises this limit by imposing an annual limit on the appropriation of state general fund revenues by adjusting such revenues by a rolling ten-year average in annual changes in general fund revenues and the creation of a separate budget stabilization fund in the state treasury to which must be credited all general fund revenues in excess of the annual limit. The bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee and did not receive any further action.

S. 72 State agencies and institutions justify dollars from any source

This legislation provides that all state agencies, departments, colleges, universities, institutions, and entities shall report to the general assembly and to the governor on January 15th and July 15th of each year the justification of the dollars from any source that are received by them, and how these dollars are used to provide services to the citizens of the state, and to provide for the administration of and exceptions to this provision. The bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee and did not receive any further action.

S. 130 Requires budget to have narrative

This legislation requires the Governor’s annual budget recommendation and the reports of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on the annual General Appropriations Act to be in a programmatic format by providing a narrative description of each separate program administered by a state agency and providing the elements that must be included in the narrative. The bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee and did not receive any further action.

Department of Education Spends $333,791 on Consultants in May

“Of course everyone gets a fair deal!”

The month of May came, went, and left behind a $333,791.00 tab in consultant and contractor fees for the taxpayers of South Carolina, courtesy of the Department of Education.

Thankfully this is a decrease from April, when Rex’s department spent almost $400, ooo on non-state employee “education and training services.”

Despite a steady stream of complaints from administrators about how budget cuts are forcing the Department of Education to do its work on a “bare bones” budget, the bureaucracy has managed to find enough money to continue paying out political consultants and contractors. Teachers have been cut, but spending has been maintained for former employees of political campaigns.

• January-$296,526
• February-$358,398
• March-$366,996
• April-$397,876
• May-$333,791
• YEAR-TO-DATE: $1.7 million to consultants and contractors

School in Marion educates students for 1/7th the cost (VIDEO)

Marion Mullins Christian School is able to educate children in K-12 for a tuition of $2,000 a year. Ms. Esther Sawyer, a longtime employee of the school, calls Marion Mullins “the poor man’s private school,” and has no shortage of stories about low-income parents who struggle to pay even this low tuition.

This news may come as a surprise to some opponents of school choice, who like to make the uninformed assumption that private schools are all elitist institutions pandering to affluent South Carolinians. Additionally, those who have condemned the effectiveness of a tax credit or scholarship to actually help families may be forced to reconsider. Even a $2,500 tax credit would be an incredible help to a family struggling to pay the school’s $2,000 tuition. In contrast to Marion Mullins Christian, local public schools in Marion District 7 have an amazing $14,761 to spend per student!

All around the state schools like Marion Mullins  are serving -often low income- families that want something other than what local public schools have to offer. Lawmkers need to bear in mind these real educational needs, and the schools that are willing to meet them for next to nothing.

“Lost Credibility”: Herald Journal Condemns District 7′s Wasteful Spending

Parents in Spartanburg School District 7- and around the state- have been shocked and outraged by a recent decision by District 7′s leaders to pay out $200,000+ ( plus $5,000 annually) to the exclusive Spartanburg Country Club so the Spartanburg High School golf team can have access to the club’s facilities.

Superintendent Thomas White, whose condescending attitude toward real education options for parents has been covered on The Voice before, has come under heavy fire for his attempts to justify such a massive expense in a time of economic uncertainty.

White is himself a member of the country club, and stated in a Herald Journal article that the large expense was worth it because, ” There isn’t anything else in District 7 that can touch the Country Club of Spartanburg in terms of training facilities and the course.”

Rex should take his own advice

The Anderson Independent-Mail posted an article detailing a speech by Jim Rex to the Oconee Alliance. In his speech, Rex bemoaned the possibility of more state budget cuts, and urged public schools to adopt a “culture of innovation” to help deal with decreasing resources.

“We’re all going to have to be more innovative; a lot of the solutions of the past just won’t work anymore,” Rex said. “We need a culture of innovation.”

In addition to calling for fiscal responsibility, Rex called the current zip code based system for school attendance an “antiquated notion,” a statement with which most families would eagerly agree.

School choice could save the state millions

A guest editorial from the opinion page of November 28th’s Greenville News:

Like an awkwardly timed pre-Thanksgiving “Christmas sale,” it starts earlier every year.

A small army of handsomely paid public officials and lobbyists begin their slow and steady drumbeat of political rhetoric.

Taking up the unassailable banner of “our children,” they argue for ever-greater spending on public schools. From newspaper opinion pages to the back halls of the Statehouse, they use public money and offices to lobby for even more of the taxpayers’ money.

And each year it has worked. Total spending by local school districts has grown more than 60 percent from 2000 to 2006. This school year, over $11,480 in combined local, state and federal money was spent for each and every child in South Carolina’s public schools.

But next year will be different. It has to be.

Pye in the Sky: Dorchester 2 Superintendent Not Living in Real World

The idea of an “economic downturn” has yet to penetrate into the consciousness of some South Carolina bureaucrats.

Even though families are cutting costs and tightening their belts, school district administrators are demanding even more money.

Superintendent Joseph Pye is hardly running Dorchester School District 2 on a shoestring budget. The South Carolina Department of Education reports that-in 2007 alone- the district had expenditures of well over $214 million dollars. This amount of spending works out to over $10,000 per student.

Despite this considerable funding, Superintendent Pye had no qualms about demanding that taxpayers in Dorchester County hand over $2.8 million more than the funding required by state law!

Anderson 5 Superintendent’s Talk/Actions Don’t Match up

$30 million in bureaucratic spending growth has to come from somewhere!

Parents and teachers in Anderson County are wondering how an economic down turn will affect their public schools.

According to Betty Bagley, Superintendent of Anderson County School District 5, classrooms are going to bear the brunt of the funding cuts.

Bagley estimates that the cuts will result in $900,000 less for the district, which will “require” a teacher hiring freeze and ultimately lead to larger class sizes for students.

The blame for the district losing money- according to Bagley- falls squarely on the legislature for limiting the local districts’ ability to continually raise single family home property taxes.

Never mind that Anderson District 5′s schools already enjoy a combined $11,021 in total local, state and federal per student funding. Anderson 5 officials want the ability to continue raising taxes.

Waste Not, Want Not

The Spartanburg Herald Journal rightly takes the SC General Assembly to task in a blistering editorial titled “Failure to set priorities.” Completely disregarding projected shortfalls in the state budget, legislators have staunchly refused to touch the millions of tax dollars they have stored away for personal pork barrel projects.

From the article

“A committee voted last week to give $10 million to a collection of lawmakers’ pet projects despite the fact that the state budget is in trouble and lawmakers know they may have to come back to Columbia later this year to deal with shortfalls.

The committee spent $10 million of the $18 million in the Competitive Grants Program, which actually involves no competition. The program simply allocates money to the favored local projects of lawmakers.”

SC Public School Spending – 17th Highest in US

So Where Does it All Go?

(hint: SC Ranks 11th in administrative spending)

The US Census Bureau has released its latest Education Finance Report, comparing the K-12 spending of US states in the 2005-06 school year.

While the Census report uses numbers lower than those released by the SC Budget and Control Board (here), the report is useful for comparing South Carolina directly to other states using a singular methodology.

The report ranks combined local, state, and federal spending with adjustments for state personal income. South Carolina ranks 17th of the 50 states, with almost $56 in K-12 spending per $1,000 of personal income.

This ranking is based on a Census figure of $8,091 per pupil in spending for South Carolina. The actual figure released by the SC Budget and Control board for 2005-06 was $10,666. Lawmakers estimate that per-pupil spending will reach an astonishing $11,480 in 2009.

Still, politicians continue to clamor for more and more spending on public schools (rather than better spending on public education). The cry for more money is a ploy, intended to distract taxpayers from the sustained failure of public schools in South Carolina. The 47 percent high school completion rate and 49th place SAT scores will not be resolved through more money. In fact, by many measures performance at public schools is actually worsening as the spending continues to grow.

Policy makers need to be honest: more and more money for failing public schools and administrative waste will not help South Carolina’s children. Opening the schools to competition through school choice will. This means more money for public schools (since choice costs less), more accountability, and freedom for parents to choose what is best for their children.