Bait and Switch

The strain of pretending he wants to do something constructive about public school finance may be getting to Gov. Perry. Recently, he abruptly told a group of Highland Park school board members – in theory, a de facto suburbanite Republican constituency – that they had better not expect any help on the matter from the state Supreme Court in the school-district lawsuit now pending before a lower court. According to board president John Carpenter, the governor said, "Well, I've talked to my attorney, and I've also appointed five of the justices of the Supreme Court and helped the sixth get elected, so I'm confident that the state is going to win." After the conversation was widely reported, the governor and his spokespeople insisted that all Perry meant is that his appointees (not yet five, but soon to reach that number) are not "activist" judges and will not "legislate from the bench."

There was much editorial huffing and puffing over judicial independence – several of the justices felt obligated to publicly reject Perry's presumption – but even more puzzling than the governor's arrogance is just what he thinks "a victory for the state" might look like. Since the school district lawsuit is a direct challenge to recapture or "Robin Hood" – which Perry insists is obsolete and should be abolished – it's hardly obvious that a successful state defense of that system would vindicate the governor's position. The central question in the pending lawsuit – in which Austin ISD, like Highland Park and a couple of hundred other districts, is a plaintiff – is whether or not the current school finance system has effectively become an unconstitutional state property tax. So if the Supreme Court (on appeal) rejects that argument and upholds the current system (a "victory" for the state), does that mean Robin Hood is right and Perry is wrong? Or that the Highland Park school board is wrong and Perry is right?

If you're thoroughly confused by now, maybe you should run for governor.

---

Treading Water

Indeed, whatever decision comes out of the courts, it will leave Perry and the Lege in exactly the same boat they've been rowing in circles – trying to do something about school finance without actually spending any money. Should the court reject Robin Hood, it will likely give the Lege a deadline to come up with a replacement, thereby providing the political cover to legislators long accustomed to complaining, "The judge made us do it!" That can't happen before spring, but Perry continues to hint that he will call another special session in July – "Unless something gets stuck in the machinery to stop it," he told reporters, "I see us continuing to move forward."

By "moving forward," Perry was apparently referring to the recent meeting of the joint finance working group, which managed to meet long enough last week to establish what was called a "consensus" but sounds more like a "stalemate." In theory, the goals (not all compatible) include: increasing the state share of school costs from 40% to 60%, cutting property taxes by a third (from $1.50 per $100 to $1), maintaining equity, and finding $1 billion in additional funds. But in practice, there is absolutely no consensus about where to find $5 billion to replace the slashed property taxes, not to mention the additional $1 billion in walking-around money (itself insufficient to replace the funds cut from school employee health care benefits last year).

In other words, we're right where we were when the special session collapsed in frustration last month, except that the financial wild card – the corporate welfare for the gambling industry known as video lottery terminals (aka "Slots for Tots") – has been roundly rejected by the state Republican Party, and simultaneously exposed as an insider deal, with Vegas attorneys (at the instigation of the governor's office) hired by the Lottery Commission to write the enabling legislation. That doesn't mean the boondoggle will go away, only that gambling in Texas will have to play the political odds on its own merits, cut adrift from the bait and switch of funding for public schools.

---

Governor Clueless

So come court case or special session or both, the episode has confirmed the governor's own priorities, in this order: 1) cutting property taxes, 2) legalizing slot machines, 3) funding public schools. And the latter desire is much less than lukewarm, as Perry made clear in another remark also reported by John Carpenter, who said Perry told him that, given the chance, Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley "could cut 20% out of the school district budgets of the state." Commented Carpenter, who is actually attempting to run a school district, "I think his perception is – and I think it's wrong – is that school districts across the state are inefficient and spending too much money. I've supported [Perry] in the past. But he doesn't have a clue about what's going on in school finance."

Indeed, even while the governor was telling school board members of one of the richest districts in Texas – still desperate enough for additional funds that they're suing the state – that they could easily lop another 20% from their children's educations, the TEA was announcing that it was $71 million short on textbook funds for next fall. (Earlier, in yet another "cost-saving" move, Neeley's interim predecessor, Perry appointee Robert Scott, closed the state textbook depository that might have filled the gap until new funding was found.)

On Tuesday, Perry announced a temporary fix by shuffling TEA funds, and said he will find the money to pay for it later. Where will the $71 million come from? Perhaps that mysterious 20%. With the governor's gift for arithmetic and budgeting, maybe the students could just take turns with the available books, and rotate staying home one day each week. It wouldn't do anything about Robin Hood, but King John would certainly have approved.