Committee on Education
February 1, 2000
Page 6
SENATOR BOHLKE: I do all that I can to honor you, Senator Coordsen. For the record, my name is Ardyce Bohlke, representing District 33, opening on the Education Committee bill, LB 1213. The bill reads, Legislative Bill 1213 removes the current methodology for calculating Class I budget limitations and includes Class I districts in the budget limitations applicable to their primary high school's local system. The existing exceptions from the budget limitations are also extended to the Class I districts. The provision allowing districts to go to the voters for additional budget authority are extended to Class I districts, but are also modified for all districts by allowing the voters in all affected local systems to vote. Currently only the district voters are allowed to vote. That concludes my opening for the committee. For the people in the audience, a committee bill means that a majority of members on the committee have signed on to a bill. Therefore, it can then be established as a committee bill. And I see...
SENATOR COORDSEN: I see no questions for Senator Bohlke. So, Senator Bohlke, I will turn the chair back to you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you. Senator Lynch, welcome to the Education Committee.
SENATOR LYNCH: Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: And I believe you are here to open on 1447.
Page 11
TESTIMONY TAKEN ON LB's 1001, 1213, 1439, 144,
SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING.
BETH BAZYN FERRELL: Good afternoon, Senator Bohlke and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Beth Bazyn Ferrell. That's B-a-z-y-n, F-e-r-r-e-1-1. I'm the assistant legal counsel for the Nebraska Association of County Officials, and I'm appearing here on behalf of that organization, as well as our affiliate groups of clerks and treasurers, with respect to LB 1001. And I do have a handout (Exhibit D) here. As Senator Vrtiska indicated in his opening, last year, LB 272 shifted some of the responsibilities that were part of the office of the county superintendent of schools to other offices. What we are asking today is to transfer some of those responsibilities back to, at least within certain boundaries, where they were before LB 272. As you'll see on the handout, the highlighted information shows that prior to LB 272 the tax request was certified to the county superintendent of schools and to the county clerk for computation of the tax levy. Legislative Bill 272 transferred that responsibility to the county assessors. After we had an opportunity to really look at this bill thoroughly last year, both the .clerks and the assessors came to our legislative committee and asked if we would look at legislation ... work with them to try and get this changed back to county clerks. The clerks said that in many cases, even when there was a county superintendent, they were involved with the computation of the levy, and they had some experience with this. The assessors told us that the information that was needed to compute the affiliated levy wasn't typically within their office, and they would have to go to the clerk's office to get this information, and in most cases the clerk would have to assist them in the calculation. So what we're asking .with this bill is really to put some language in the statute that reflects current practice, as opposed to creating a new policy. With that', I'd ask for your support of this bill, and I'd be happy I to answer any questions if I could.
Page 12
SENATOR BOHLKE: Questions from the committee? I see none. Thank you. Next testifier. Welcome, Brad.
BRAD CABRERA: Thank you. Senator Bohlke, members of the Education Committee, I'm here on behalf of the Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association, and I'm testing in ... testifying in opposition to 1056.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Although we all know who you are, for the record, we need you to state your name.
BRAD CABRERA: Okay. I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Brad Cabrera, and I'm testifying today as a legislative cochair for the Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association. In addition, I'm Superintendent of Schools at Sutton. Again, I'm testifying in opposition to LB 1056, on behalf of NRCSA. We have concerns with not being required to have an audit for even Class I schools. When you look at $150,000 as being a low amount of money, if you're the person that is responsible and is accountable to the public for that amount of money, we feel that the check and balance is necessary. With due respect to Senator Jones, it is not, with my familiarity, that the primary high school does any type of an auditing for any Class I funds. The funds do go from the county treasurer's office directly to the Class I district in terms of taxes. But other than that, no other accounts are accountable to the primary high school. So we feel that it's an important check and balance with schools.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you, Brad. Questions from the committee? I see none. Anyone else wishing to testify on either one of these two bills? All right. I...please come forward then, quickly. This is either on 1001 or 1056.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: Legislative Bill 1056. Can I ... I have copies..
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes. A page, please. Welcome.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: (Exhibit E) Thank you.. Members of the Education Committee, I am Kevin Cooksley, a board member of a Class I school Custer County, and I am here in support of LB 1056. Since the inception of the law requiring annual audits of all Class I school budgets, I have seen our annual
Page 13
audit costs go from $650 for the '91-92 budget of $36,530, to $1,070 for the '98-99 budget of $26,395. Shown as a percent of our expenditures, it went from 1.77 percent of our budget to presently 4.053 percent. These numbers may not seem too impressive, but to put them into perspective, I'll compare them to Broken Bow Public Schools, which is our primary high school, and their budget-audit expenses. For the 198-99 year, Broken Bow Public Schools' general fund budget of expenditures was $5,442,500, and their audit cost was $4,100. That was 0.0753 percent of their '98-99 budget. If they would have spent 4.053 percent, as we did, of their 198-99 budget for their audit, it would cost ... would have cost them $222,584, not $4,100. 1 have checked with surrounding Class I's in our county, and their audit costs are currently running approximately 1.77 percent of their general fund budget of expenditures, which is still 25 times the rate of Broken Bow's. I know that even a small audit still requires a certain number of procedures that cost a given amount of man-hours. But isn't it about time that you grant the same practical variance to schools with small budgets that Nebraska has granted small townships, ag societies, and fire districts? We are wasting taxpayer dollars when audits are consuming scarce funds that are already pinched by budget lid constraints. We could be giving our teacher better pay raises or buying books with that money. Wouldn't that be better management? I urge you to adopt and work for passage of this legislation. Do you have any questions?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Any questions? Senator Coordsen.
SENATOR COORDSEN: Would you share with us, Mr. Cooksley, the process... I know how it used to be done, because I did this for nine years back when I was younger and didn't know any better. But anyway, that was certainly before audit. But tell me, today, you have three board members, I trust?
KEVIN COOKSLEY: Yes, sir.
SENATOR COORDSEN: And how do you go about balancing the books? You have a treasurer, a secretary, and a president, or something like that?
KEVIN COOKSLEY: Some ... our particular school, every time we write a check ... and we don't have a large budget, as you can
Page 14
see...every check is signed by two of us, and every entry we make is checked by two of us as we go through. And then at the end of the year, when we do our budget, we go through the entire list of all the expenses and all the income, to make sure everything balances.
SENATOR COORDSEN: Yeah. Does your secretary and treasurer still maintain two separate sets of books?
KEVIN COOKSLEY: We have three sets of books.
SENATOR COORDSEN: Three sets of books. Okay.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: I am the president, I have a book. Our treasurer has one, and so does our secretary.
SENATOR COORDSEN: Well, and the reason I think, Mr. Cooksley, it's important to note that for the board, is that unless you've been in that position, it is so much different than a school system where an administrator runs ... does the daily occupations and does the daily business aside from the members of the board, because ... and only a comment , that I can well remember looking for three cents for two weeks, because the treasurer and my books did not balance. But there are a lot of checks and balances in it without a professional audit. Is that what you would say? Would you agree?
KEVIN COOKSELY: Yes, sir.
SENATOR COORDSEN: Thank you.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: I know one of the other problems we face, especially in outstate Nebraska, is the law requires that a CPA do this audit. And there's only one CPA within 70 miles of us, in Broken Bow.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I introduced a bill one time to change that. But that didn't go very well either.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: I ... yeah, competition would probably help the price. I notice the local auditor has grown quite a bit since the inception of this law.
SENATOR BOHLKE: And just as a reminder, gentle reminder,
Page 15
we're going to have a lot of testimony that you may like, may not like. But we do ask the audience not to respond. It makes it difficult to hear the recordings for the recorder. So, thank you.
SENATOR RAIKES: Yes. A question for you on this is, suppose you had a situation where you had a smaller Class I that there was a report received to the Commissioner of Education. It says here "verifiable reports." Now, that seems a little bit vague as to what might be required as...for verifiable. But let's say that a third party did report some mismanagement or something like that. The board elected not to have an audit. They decided not on their own. They didn't believe the report, or whatever the reason. So it's left to the Commissioner. The commissioner, as I understand this, would have to somehow decide whether or not an audit was in order, and then if he did, how would he do it. Would he require that Class I to pay for it, or how would that happen? He or she, that is. The commissioner.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: You're asking me about a hypothetical that I don't know has ever occurred. I'm sure it probably has somewhere.
SENATOR RAIKES: But it would probably make sense to include in statute language to cover such a hypothetical. Would you agree?
KEVIN COOKSLEY: I agree that there certainly should be a methodology in law for someone who questions the integrity of the books to cause an audit to happen.
,SENATOR RAIKES: Okay.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: But I also believe the law should somehow reward honesty, so that if you are caused to be audited by someone who just wanted to cause problems, that they should stand the cost of the audit if it proves that they were wrong.
SENATOR RAIKES: Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Senator Wickersham.
Page 16
SE NATOR WICKERSHAM: Well, the... I think that Senator Jones indicated that what he was seeking was a process that was identical to fire districts and ag societies and a couple of other miscellaneous political subdivisions. In those political subdivisions, the rule is that you can ask the auditor's office for a waiver of the audit requirement, and you have to submit a form to the auditor's office that details expenditures and receipts for the school district.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: Yes, sir. You're right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Yeah. So this doesn't do that.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: Correct.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Would that be a reasonable...
KEVIN COOKSLEY: A waiver request?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: ... requirement?
KEVIN COOKSLEY: Yes, sir. I think that would be.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Yeah. And then the other concern is the ... and I'm not sure who does this in the current system, but I see our finance ... school finance folks over there. The AFRs, the other financial reports for the State Department of Education, do you have to use your CPA to do any of those? Or how are those compiled?
KEVIN COOKSLEY: We've done it ourselves. We've done it ourselves every year. Some schools use their CPA. Sometimes the CPA says, I can do that for you for a very nominal fee, maybe 50 bucks or something like that, because he's got all your records already.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Are those audited?
KEVIN COOKSLEY: The Annual Financial Report?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: The AFRS. Yeah. Is that audited in some respect?
KEVIN COOKSLEY: I believe that goes from their office to the county superintendent of schools, and then to the state
Page 17
auditor's office, State Department of Education. So as far as who verifies those figures exactly, I know we get a copy of it to check and see if we agree with everything before we send it in. But as far as the audit of it goes, I suppose that belongs in the state.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Well, what I was wondering, and I will have to ask Mr. Inbody or someone else, if the annual audits that are prepared for school districts are then used as a check to verify information on the AFR, if you... I'm trying to think of all the ramifications here... if you then eliminate the audit, will you be required then to have an audit of the AFR? That's what I'm getting at. Because that is a critical document for a number of purposes. And I'm not suggesting that should be the rule. I'm trying to figure out whether that will be a ramification. You should always ... you should always figure out what you may get if you ask ... if you get what you ask for. It may be something else.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: I would speculate that the causes of the two are ... come from two different sources. One was looking for...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Alright. Okay. Well, I'm going to want to find out a little bit more. But again, I don't want to have...
SENATOR BOHLKE: Other questions ... oh, I'm sorry.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: ... something happen that turns out not to be what you want.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: I understand.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Yeah.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I'm sorry, Senator. Other questions? I see none. Senator Wickersham, would you like to have Russ Inbody come forward and answer those questions now...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: If he wish. Yeah.
SENATOR BOHLKE: ... so we ... okay. Would you come forward please, Russ? Did you hear Senator... ?
Page 18
RUSS INBODY: Good afternoon.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Welcome. Did you hear Senator Wickersham's questions? And for the record, give your name, please.
RUSS INBODY: Yes. I am Russ Inbody, with the Office of School Finance and Organization Services of the Department of Education. And I think, kind of piggy-backing that on Senator Raikes's question as well as Senator Wickersham's, is that the verifiable report, I would judge, would be the annual financial report. And what we have done in the past is, we take the annual financial report, whether it was submitted by the CPA or by the district personnel themselves, and compared it to the audit report to verify the numbers.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Is that a critical component of your process, or would you develop ... if the annual audits weren't available, would you develop some other process to verify the AFR?
RUSS INBODY: Yes, we would ... well, we would ... what we would probably do is, we'd do some sort of comparison for reasonableness check with previous years. And if we saw some major changes, we'd probably contact the school district to see if there was an explanation for that. And there could be.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. All right.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Any other questions for Mr. Inbody? I see none. Thank you for coming forward.
RUSS INBODY: You're welcome.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Anyone else wishing to testify on this bill? All right. I think we are ready. Marilyn, I have the names of people wishing to ... that you, I assume, gave me this list. I have Marilyn, and Tanya, and then a Class VI Association, the Grange, Farmer's Union, F.R.E.D., NRCSA, Cheney, Abie, and possibly a representative from WIFE. Other than that, are there other people who are going to want to testify? One, two ... one, two, three ... the more hands that go up, the more time we're going to have to
Page 19
limit. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Eight? Possib ... going once. Maybe, wait and see. Well, we'll count you. Eight. So that's 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. The committee needs to have an Executive Session. I would think it's fair... it's 2:20 now... if we would go till four o'clock and see if we have accommodated most everyone who's wishing to testify. It if looks like we've asked too many questions and haven't given you all a chance, we'll reevaluate at that time. But if we could have that for a target time. And has everyone signed in, Marilyn, on the sign-in sheets? Do you know?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: I would request that the sign-in sheets be passed through the audience.
SENATOR BOHLKE: All right. If the pages would take the sign-in sheets and pass them out. And then what we do, which really helps also, is when the person is testifying, if the next person who's going to testify would be on what we call the on-deck chair, that just helps move things along, and will guarantee that all of you who wish to testify and who have travelled a long ways especially will have that opportunity. So come forward, Marilyn. And then Tanya should be on the on-deck chair. And then if you ... following that will be the Class VI's, and then Grange, and then Farmer's Union. Will you make sure that you're as close to the front as possible? That will also help. Welcome.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Thank you. Senator Bohlke, members Of the Education Committee, my name is Marilyn Meerkatz. I'm the executive director of Class I's United, and also registered lobbyist for Class I's United. I am here today in opposition to LBs 1447 and 1439. 1 am also opposing LB 1213, but I will be offering some amendments for that bill. I do want to mention, we do support LB 1056, although we don't need to offer any particular testimony on that one. You may notice that "Tanya" has a rather masculine appearance to her today. (Laugh) Tanya Storer, from Cherry...
SENATOR BOHLKE: Well, you never know these days. (Laugh)
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yes. Tanya Storer, from Cherry County, had chartered a flight to be here today. And the pilot
Page 20
refused to leave because it was too icy. So I do have, and the pages are distributing to you, Tanya's testimony (Exhibit G). And we're going to be asking Colonel Schulman, from Stull Public School, to testify also in Tanya's stead. So. When these ... when the bills that would eliminate Class I schools were introduced, I had a lot of questions from a lot of people across the state. And the question that seemed to come to the forefront most of all is, what do you think the vision is that the senators have for education in Nebraska, and why is it that Class I schools would not be a part of that vision? What is the reason behind the people who want to eliminate Class I schools? What do they think they will be gaining for the children of Nebraska if this step is taken. And I have to admit that the restrictions that have been placed on Class I schools and on rural schools in general in the past three years since I've been involved with this issue have brought that question to my mind, too. And I've thought about it a lot. And I have a hard time answering that question. I grew up in rural Nebraska. I went to a Class I school for grades K through 2. Then we moved close enough to Fullerton that I spent the rest of my elementary school years and my high school years at Fullerton Public School. It seems funny now to think that I considered myself to be a country kid and that Fullerton was a city. Now I go back to Fullerton now, and it doesn't look like a city to me anymore. In fact, my children, who were born, raised in Lincoln, attended Lincoln Public Schools all through elementary and high school, the last one now being a senior, refer to Fullerton as quaint, and they're not quite sure how anybody survives without a McDonald's. I think that ... and Colonel Schulman will be talking some more about this later. We have a unique educational system in Nebraska. I hear people say, time and time again, but we have six hundred and some districts, and isn't that inefficient? It is different from the educational system in a lot of other states. I think it is unique and I think it's beautiful. I think that through history ... through the history of Nebraska, we have developed an educational system that meets the needs of children where they are. If you eliminate the* Class I schools, if you eliminate the Class VI schools, and force them to become a Class II or III, you are taking away that unique beauty, that unique opportunity that we provide to our children in Nebraska to be educated where they live, for their parents to be very closely involved in their education. And it's
Page 21
something that nationally, internationally, people are recognizing now, that the small schools with intense parental involvement and multi-level education is the very best kind of education that we can give to children.. The statistics have always baffled me also, because we don't keep statistics on Class I children. Once they get to high school, they become a part of the high school. And so we can't say to you, 30 percent of the kids that went to Class I schools graduated in the top 10 percent of their class, you know, or ... as opposed to five percent of the kids that didn't go to Class I schools, whatever. We can't say those things to you. Those statistics aren't kept. And quite frankly, in my mind, the statistics really don't make any difference. What makes a difference is allowing the people at the local level to choose what works best for their children and to have a board that can make budgetary decisions that will allow them to provide that level of education. Obviously, 1447, 1439 I'm opposed to. I don't understand where they ... where this comes from, that people think that they're going to save money by closing Class I schools. The -state still has a responsibility to educate the children where they live. It's not going to cost any less if you have an attendance center in the middle of a Sandhills for elementary children than it is if you have a Class I school in the middle of the Sandhills for elementary children. It ... you know, it isn't going to make any difference. In terms of 1213 ... and I've handed out to you my proposed amendments (Exhibit F) for this. When we get into the mindset that things have to be based on a system instead of on a district, it simply results in some ridiculous situations. Class I districts are not like their primary high schools in many sense ... many terms. Many times, they are not like their high school in terms of growth. You're going to hear a little later from the people from Butler County, from Abie School, who experienced a tremendous growth in their student population where their system has experienced none. So for them to be having the same growth rate as their primary high school is just going to result in children being shortchanged. Having the budget overrides being done in a system and not in a district, again, results in some pretty ridiculous situations. if Rokeby School, here in Lancaster County, wanted to have a budget override of $5,000, they would have to get the vote, of all the people in Lincoln, all the people in Crete, and all the people in Norris. The Cost of that election would
Page 22
probably be, what, $75,000 to raise $5,000. Would that make any sense? And as I read the... as I read the bill, I think that Rokeby would end up paying for that election. So that kind of looks like a losing situation. So what I have suggested ... and this is ... you know, this is not a new concept that I'm suggesting here. It's something that Class I's United has been suggesting for three years. And it is something that I believe addresses not only a fair distribution for Class I districts and a fair treatment of their high school partners, but I also believe that it would address any of the constitutional issues that have been raised by the lawsuit that everybody likes to refer to. I think first of all we need to have a fair allocation of property tax proceeds from the Class I district. Now, we're talking about the Class I district only. The percentages that are listed here, 61-point, point, point percent for the Class I district, if it's affiliated with the K-12 or if it's part of a Class VI which offers 9 to 12th grade education. Sixty-one percent of their tax proceeds is reserved for the use of the Class I. The rest of it goes to the high school to support the high school's program. That's fair, because the Class I needs to support the high school program. That's where the kids go to high school. That makes sense. Then if it's a Class VI district that offers 7 through 12th grade education, it would just be the 44 percent. And these percentages were taken ... found elsewhere in statutes, based on the whole grade weighting thing, 0.5 for kindergarten and 1.0 for grades K through 6, that you're so familiar with. Then the ... allow the Class I to set a budget which is equal to that amount, a fair amount off of their district, plus anything they get out of state aid, plus anything ... or grants, or other receipts that they have to put on their annual financial report. So if they can run their school within that constraint, then they're fine. If not, then they can go to their high ... they can go to their voters and say, we need some more money, and they can decide yes or no, we're going to give you some more money to run your district. And they ... but any excess levy would be only on the Class I district property. It's not asking for a handout. It's only asking to be able to take care of our own. The concept of a system-wide override was something else that we considered. And it would seem to me that you could either...you should ... they should either be allowed to have a system-wide override if everybody in the system needs a little bit more money ... so maybe by...and
Page 23
this is just sort of a concept. But perhaps if 75 percent of the boards of education of all the districts in the system wanted to have a system-wide override, then they go forward with that. Otherwise, each district in the system, including the high school, be perfectly free to have their own individual overrides. Okay. Then the question becomes, well, if that K-12 district has an override, part of that's for high school, right? Yes, part of it is. And the Class I should pay the part of the taxes that would be that same percentage that we talked about up above, the 39 percent, the 60 ... whatever that would figure out to be.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Sixty-one and 44.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yeah, whatever. The portion of that that's high school, they would pay that portion of the high school's override. I guess one thing that ... this occurred to me all ... that I've thought about all along, when I thought about these issues ... and I know how difficult it is, and I know how hard a lot of you work on trying to come up with something that's fair and that's equitable. I know it would be' easier just to say, we're done dealing with these people, they're a bunch of pests, we're Just going to close them down. But I guess the old homily that I'd like to leave you with is that it's not always right to do what's easy, and it's not always easy to do what's right. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you, Marilyn. Questions from the committee?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Well, Marilyn, with that enjoinder, I certainly don't want to see Class I's disappear. As you know, I've always supported Class I's. I think they're an integral part of our educational system. In many parts of our state, it's the only kind of an educational system that I think would make sense and be able to deliver accessible educational opportunities. But what is more important? Three or four years ago, we were hearing that the most important thing to the people in the state of Nebraska was property tax relief, property tax relief. We have to have property tax relief. We've delivered property tax relief. Whether you all believe it or not, we have, in our View. We've devoted very large amounts of additional state resources to property tax relief. We actually saw property
Page 24
taxes go down a year ago for the first time in almost nine years. This year, we had modest increases in property taxes, at least modest in comparison to what they had been before. Your proposal, I'm afraid, would suggest that for a few political subdivisions in the state... few when you compare them with all the counties, cities, NRDs, ESUs, all the other political subdivisions ... that a few political subdivisions, in this case the Class I schools, be allowed almost unlimited access to property taxes. Would we then hear that we need property tax relief? Would we hear that again?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Well, I'm not suggesting that the Class I's shouldn't be subject to the same, you know, property cap, tax cap limit as the rest of the district.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Well, let me ask a couple of questions .about this proposal.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Okay. All right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Because you say that a Class I ought to set a budget which is equal to the amount raised by property taxes.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Right. The...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: So you should have a budget that is equal to as much as you can levy?
MA RILYN MEERKATZ: Well, isn't that in essence what happens in Lincoln or anyplace else?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: No.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: They can ... they... I mean, they have a $1.10 or a $1.00 property tax limit. And they have to budget so that they can stay under that limit, plus the other receipts that they have. That's exactly what I'm ,suggesting here. You have to budget so that you can stay under that limit. And if you can't stay under that limit, then you go to your people and say, we want some more.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: The limit that you're proposing, the budget limit ... they're two different things, a levy limit
Page 25
and a spending limitation.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yes, yes.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: We have a number of school districts in the state that are well below their levy limitation. They're underneath the levy limitation because they've been constrained by the budget limitations. That was part of the plan. We knew that valuations would go up. And as valuations would go up, some local elected officials would be happy to say, we kept the levy the same as we did last year and simply raised a lot more money in taxes. So the Legislature imposed...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: So you're saying the level ... allowable...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: ... so the Legislature imposed spending limitations so that won't happen. But what you're proposing is that you're spending limitation be equal to the amount that you could raise from taxation, so there would be no limitation. So valuations went up, the school board, or whomever was responsible, could simply send the taxes right up with the valuation. Should we abandon that strategy? Should we tell the taxpayers, the property taxpayers of the state of Nebraska that we have abandoned our strategy of trying to provide property tax relief to them?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Okay. The other classes of school district, the mechanism that you're suggesting keeps a lid on their budget is this allowable growth rate. Is that correct?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Yes.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Okay. And I would have no objection to Class I's being under that same allowable growth rate if it was for their district,...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Well that isn't...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: ... not for ... okay. So I guess it would be ... they can set a budget which was equal to that amount, as long as it was under the allowable growth rate for their district, not based on the primary high school system.
Page 26
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Well, okay. Well, I think that's an important point, because that isn't what your proposal says.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yeah. It needs an addition to it there.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Well, we need to figure out what you're talking about here.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Right. Right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: So...because I'm frankly not in favor of just throwing open the doors and saying, okay, let the property taxpayers pay for it.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: You're right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: We know they want to pay for it, so by golly, let's make them.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: I'm not...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: And I would have...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: ... and I'm not in favor of that.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: ... but the other caveat I guess I would have to that is that because Class I budgets have been in some areas ratcheted down by the ... you know, the per people cost averaging thing, that maybe if you're going to talk about an allowable growth rate, it ought to go back a couple of years to where they were before, especially if that law is found to be unconstitutional, if that system is found to be unconstitutional. But ... if you see where I'm coming, ... or, what I'm saying there.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Well, the...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: But I have no objection to ... and I...you know, I don't think the Class I's have any objection to being under the same constrictions that everybody else is under. Yes, an allowable growth rate based on your .district,, not based on a primary high school. And then if
Page 27
you can raise within...which is what other districts do...if you can raise that with the property taxes and your other receipts, then you're fine.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Is there anything ... and this only applies ... well, it would apply both to Class VI and Class II's and III's ... the protection here for the basic budget of the Class I's, I take it, is the allocation of the property tax proceeds. I know one time we talked about the issue of whether or not any of a school district's budget authority would be allocated to a Class I if the primary district knew that the patrons of the Class I could be put in the situation of simply going home with nothing and being told to vote to pay more.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Right. And this totally...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: And I've always expressed my opposition to that.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yes.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: So this is your alternative to that kind of a predicament?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yes.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: And I would characterize that as a predicament. I ...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yes.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: ... just would not, could not bring myself to put people in that situation.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yes. This would take it out of the hands of anybody else setting ... other than the allowable growth rate, but anybody else, the Class VI board or the high schools and the affiliated systems, having to have any control over the Class I budget. And quite frankly, I've heard from a number of high school people as well as Class I people. They're not happy about that.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Now, the interaction of two provisions in your proposal, one, it says, all districts in
Page 28
a system would hold an election for a system-wide property tax override ... this isn't a budget override, this is a tax override...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: ... with the approval of 75 percent of the boards of education of the districts in the system.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Now, I'm assuming that would mean the primary high school and all of the affiliated or the included Class I's in the case of a Class VI. So you'd have to have a separate vote by a 75 percent majority of each one of those boards before you could submit an override vote? Is that what you're in...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Before you could have a system-wide override, right ... a tax levy override. And ... but either the high school or the Class I would have the ability to do an independent override.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: So that only applies ... that provision is only supposed to apply to a system... ?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: System-wide override of a tax levy limit. And I guess I envision that that would happen if everybody in the system needs a little more money, that they would ... you know, then they could have a systemwide and do an override. If only one district needed it, then they could do their own independent.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Why would you ever have a system override?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Simply for that reason, if everybody was in the situation where they needed to raise a little more. And you know, maybe that's ... you know, I guess I'd be perfectly happy with just eliminating the system-wide and just having it go district by district, too.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Well, see, I didn't... I couldn't understand why you would have a system-wide override if each individual district could override on their own, because any
Page 29
time you attempted a system override, you'd know that other people would vote against it, because they don't want to pay your taxes. I ...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yeah, and it would have to be, I think, a fairly common need throughout the system for ... you know, for everybody to have more, for that to happen. I ... you know, I would have no objection to that ... the whole system-wide override concept just being thrown out. But...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Again, I'm trying to figure out what you're asking for. And it's like my question to Mr. Cooksley. You want to make sure what you ask for, you don't know what you're going to get, because it may be something else. It just... it turns out that way more often than you can imagine.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: And we would be ... you know, this is a concept. We'd be very happy to work with trying with anybody on trying to draft actual language that would accomplish this, because it probably requires amendment of more pieces of statute than I can Possibly imagine to accomplish this. But...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Now, is this similar to the proposal that was introduced by Senator Dierks, or this has other components?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Yes. It's similar.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: It's similar. It does not include everything that's in the proposal introduced by Senator Dierks.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Because I know there will be hearing on that bill later...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: You're right. Right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: ... and I want to be able to think about the two of them before then. Okay. Thank you.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Thank you.
Page 30
SENATOR BOHLKE: Marilyn, before I call on Senator Raikes, Just as a point, I think it points out how complicated this can get. What you just agreed with with Senator Wickersham, that is, if the allowable growth rate is district based, you would then end up getting what you have today, or less.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Possibly, unless your district is growing.
SENATOR BOHLKE: This... just so everyone, you know...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: It's possible.
SENATOR BOHLKE: ... and that's why we have to continue to have discussions.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Right. Right.
SENATOR BOHLKE: But I'm not so sure that's your intent. I don't know.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Well, I guess my intent would be just to have it based on whatever the actual needs of the district are. If the district is growing, then they obviously should have more money. If they're not, then they don't. So ... and I guess one other point that I would like to make is that our organization has never ... we've seen a lot of things in the press about that we're trying to attack the state aid formula and that we're attacking affiliation, and so on. We are not doing that. We have never ... we have ... none of our proposals have ever addressed the state aid formula. We've always left it to the wisdom of the senators to determine what state aid should be. And so ours is not... it's never, been about state aid, and it's never been about trying to break the common levy, and it's never been about trying to destroy affiliation.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Senator Raikes, did you have a question?
SENATOR RAIKES: Yes. Let me offer up a...probably what's a ridiculous example, to get at a question. Suppose you had a Class I that was solely affiliated with a K-12. And I'm looking up here to your percentage that's under 3a(l), 61 percent, and the other one is 44. Suppose that we
Page 31
implemented this and that there was, say ... turned out-to be 30 percent of the resources in the district ... property tax resources, if you will ... that were in the Class I, 70 percent in the rest. And suppose that in the Class I you had ten students and in the Class ... the rest of the system, you had 500. If you employed this, you might end up...am I wrong ... in a situation where property taxes alone, 61 percent of the property taxes at the levy limit, would give you, say, $20,000 a student property tax revenue.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: And I think that's why Senator Wickersham's point is well taken, because unless they were under some sort of a budgetary ... you know, the allowable growth of the budget based on their district, yes, that kind of situation could result, if you went strictly by this formula. So I think it is ... an important part of it would be to put the allowable growth rate in there, too.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. Well, I guess the other thing I'm thinking about is, say you had then patrons in the Class I district who are members of the school board that said, look, twenty thousand dollars, that's way too much, five is enough, so we're going to cut our expenditures down. What happens then to the property tax levy in the ... do you just arbitrarily, out of the goodness of your heart, drop that percentage down to 30 percent and send the rest to the K-12, or do you drop your property tax levy?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Well, I don't think that you could drop the property tax levy, given a common levy situation. I would think...
SENATOR RAIKES: So you would be encouraged to spend it. I mean ... right?
MARILYN MEERKATZ: You would be encouraged to spend it, except under the allowable growth rate you wouldn't be able to spend it.
SENATOR RAIKES: Unless you had some unused budget authority, or...
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Unless you had ... and right now, Class I's do not have any unused budget authority to carry forward to the other years. I personally think that that's something
Page 32
that should be included, but it's not something we've talked about in this proposal. But there should be some unused budget authority available, because you're right, the current system encourages Class I's to spend absolutely every penny they're allowed to spend, because if they don't they can't carry it over and use it next year.
SENATOR RAIKES: Well, but the current system is not this.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: No, no.
SENATOR RAIKES: So the ... yeah. Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Other questions from the committee? You're free.
MARILYN MEERKATZ: Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Okay. Colonel. And on deck we should have a representative of the Class VI Association in the chair.
MICHAEL SCHULMAN: Senator Bohlke, members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to quickly share three thoughts. On the way down, somebody thought it was a good idea that I ... since I'm a... I bring to you the perspective of a taxpayer and parent, but the Outsider perspective in that I'm very new to the state, seemed like a good idea. I have to tell you, sitting here right now, I'm a little more nervous than I was as a young man...
SENATOR BOHLKE: We're always harder on Marilyn than we are people like you. (Laughter) She's just used to it, so don't worry. But you do have to state your name for the record, please.
MICHAEL SCHULMAN: I am Michael Schulman, and I live in Plattsmouth, and I am here to testify in opposition of 1447 and 1439. The three points that I would like to quickly make are, as a family, we just, after 26 years in the Air Force, retired and chose our location. I lived in 7 states growing up, 11 states in the course of my military career, and three countries. I chose Nebraska based on quality of life. It was a sophisticated choice that was done with a very complex matrix, that I sat down with a not-easy spouse in this area, who didn't want to come to Nebraska because
Page 33
one of the matrix areas was weather and it came in dead last, another was salaries and it came in second from the bottom. But despite that, we chose Nebraska because of quality of life, because the number-one thing that we remembered from our three years in the seventies was the tremendous education our older daughters got. And so we came here to go to a Class I school. We chose our house based on where a Class I school was available. And it was not that we wanted to shortchange taxpayers in any other part of the city or state. It was purely a matter of quality, and it was with the understanding that it takes more parental commitment to be a parent of a Class I student.
SENATOR BOHLKE: So had you met Carrie Fisher by that time?
MICHAEL SCHULMAN: My second point is that I...as a citizen, I am a little concerned, from a macro perspective, in what I see going on, and that is, a violation of the basic principals of the organization of government. Our American government all over the country is based on a principal that starts with the individual and respects that individual, including when the individual is a child, and then the next step is the community. With all due respect, the senator earlier referred to the patchwork quilt as an illogical organization that gives us our current school districts. That illogical patchwork quilt happens to represent where the communities really are. And the basic principal of eliminating a political entity is a very dangerous principal, because once you start with one, where does it end? Government exists to provide services that people cannot be expected to provide by themselves. And for government to selectively say, I will no longer provide this service, I will disestablish your political entity, it has some serious ramifications. I've had the opportunity to live in countries where governments can disestablish political entities, and I can assure you, it's a ... it is ... once you start down the road, you eventually come to the fact that you can save all tax money by providing no services, or you can give only those services which those in power choose to give. We have a marvelous system, that patchwork quilt that represents communities and that keeps folks involved and that gives us for ... by our matrix's conclusion, at the sixteenth highest tax rate in the country, the fourth best education System. My final point
Page 34
that I would like to make, again, as a person who chose Nebraska, was that it's very sad to see a state that has held its ground when the rest of the country and the rest of the world discarded the value of families and the value of community and the value of rural communities particularly, at a time when literally the whole rest of the world is rediscovering, as we transition to the information age, what that quality injects, where significant contributions come from, to see a movement that goes in the exact opposite direction. I spent 15 of the 26 years I spent in the Air Force as a political officer beating around Latin America with members of our State Department that were first living with and then finally trying to undo failed policies from the fifties where we decided that bigger is better and cities are required and factories is everything. And now our government is out reversing that trend all around the world. But what I see here is a furthering of that trend, and a mind-set that says, in fact, there will be no growth in the rural areas, they're going to continue to get small, they're obnoxious political entities that cost money. I don't think that's true. I think they actually ... the lies, damn lies, and statistics can create an image, but I don't think education is any more expensive if you price out the whole cost of infrastructure to include transportation of those people who currently are out there. And finally, as a person who's in the information technology industry right now, I would strongly encourage you to consider, what are the implications? Where is not just the school system going, but where is Nebraska going? In a 1992 book, Alvin Toffler decide ... and his wife Heidi, defined three ages of history, the first being an agricultural age, the second being an industrial, and the third, that we're transitioning to, an information age. Nebraska prospered in the industrial age because we could do ... primarily, we could do agricultural things at an industrial level. As we transition into the information age, we're going to have to be able to produce people that can observe, orient, decide, and act. And if you look at ... if you lay out the trends of what will draw quality workers...because right now we've got five percent industrial growth and one percent population growth, we've got to draw people to Nebraska ... one of your best cards to draw people is a system like we have. And I just strongly encourage the Unicameral to do those things that leverage Nebraska's strong points, not throwing babies out with the bathwater. And I would gladly answer any
Page 35
questions.
SENATOR BOHLKE: That's amazing you got all that on that .little card you were holding. (Laughter)
MICHAEL SCHULMAN: Three main points is all they give military guys, and limited time.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Questions from the committee? I see none. And thank you for choosing Nebraska.
MICHAEL SCHULMAN: Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Deb. Someone from the... I think Kevin is coming back up, from the Grange, next. If you'll be on the on-deck chair, please. Hi, Deb.
DEB FISCHER: Senator Bohlke, members of the committee, my name is Deb Fischer. I'm the president of the board of education of the Valentine Rural High School, and I'm also on the executive committee of the Class VI Association. I'm here today to speak in opposition to LB 1447 and, LB 1439. The Class VI-Class I is a viable K-12 educational system, and recognized as such by current state statute and by standing positions of the Nebraska Association of School Boards. The Nebraska Legislature allowed for the creation of regional high schools, recognizing the need for these structures because of the special needs faced by rural Nebraska. Those basic needs still exist today. Valentine Rural High School was formed in 1971. We are the largest school district in the state, with an area larger than the states of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Our district encompasses 3,600 square miles of land, approximately five percent of the land mass of the state of Nebraska. If you drove from east to west, you would cover a distance from Lincoln to Grand Island; north to south, Lincoln to Omaha. We have an enrollment of 265 students in grades I through 12, and over 600 students in our elementary districts. Our geographic diversity and sparsity of population make our regional high school an efficient educational system, allowing for responsible use of taxpayer ,dollars while providing excellent education for our young people. Our 1998-99 total budget of expenditures was $7.3 million. The valuation was three hundred forty-four million five hundred ninety-two. The levy was 1.04. Our
Page 36
1999-2000 total budget of expenditures are $7.6 million, a 4.45 percent increase. The valuation is three hundred eighty-five million five hundred thirty-one, an 11.88 increase. The levy was lowered to 0.9989. 1 was told by our superintendent yesterday that we will be receiving $415,000 less in state aid next year, and will probably see another 11 percent increase in our valuation. Because of our diversity and our ruralness, it is important to maintain local representation throughout our system through our individual elementary boards of education. In a Class VI system, each Class I district associated with the regional high school, not affiliated with it, has their own board of education. This is important in a system with our large area. These boards make decisions based upon local needs and take an active interest in their children's education. There are differences between a Class I within a Class VI system and an affiliated Class I. Our Class I districts still have their own budget hearings, but the Class VI board, not the Department of Education, certifies the total allowable general fund budget of expenditures, minus the special education budget of expenditures, for the Class I districts. This takes knowledge of the system and cooperation between all districts. My board works very well with our Class I districts, and we continue to work at improving our relationships. We provide for district-wide curriculum coordination through a K-12 written plan, periodically updated. We also share facilities for various programs, including in-service, convocation, and science labs. We are recently ... excuse me. We recently held a joint board meeting with our Class I districts. At this meeting, various agenda items previously suggested by the Class I boards were discussed. These included the superintendent position, which the county commissioners contract with our Class VI district to provide these services for our Class I's, curriculum, extracurricular activities, and of course, budgets. We had a good discussion, and are working on areas of concern. We as a board understand the diversity of our system, from a district such as the Valentine Elementary, with over 450 students, to a rural district 45 miles from Valentine with three students. Another issue that differentiates a Class VI system from an affiliated Class I is in representation. My Class VI board is elected by voters within our entire K-12 system, and so represents all the patrons of that system. Everyone has a vote in our Class VI
Page 37
district. And another difference, everyone can vote in a bond election, and if passed, then pays the same levy for the bond fund. In response to Senator Lynch, everyone is a taxpayer with a common levy in a Class VI system. Everyone is a voter in a Class VI system. Every child is a resident in the Class VI system. We are a K-12 educational system. The educational needs of our children are being met through our Class VI-I system. Yes, this K-12 system may seem foreign and confusing to some of you. But it was set up in recognition of the diversity and uniqueness we have across our state. That hasn't changed. Being raised in Lincoln and graduating from the LPS system, I can appreciate the challenges and opportunities faced by city schools. After living in Valentine for 29 years, I can also appreciate the challenges and opportunities faced by rural schools. What I am trying to say to you today is that one solution is not right for every situation in this state. Our Class VI-Class I system works in Cherry County. Each situation should be viewed individually and with the children of this entire state in mind. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: 'Thank you, Deb. Questions from the committee?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Well, Deb...
SENATOR BOHLKE: Senator Wickersham.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Excuse me. You mentioned that you have had joint board meetings with your Class VI's, and other activities. Have you had any problems arriving at the ... as required by current law, the aggregate budget for the systems? Has that been a difficult process for you?
DEB FISCHER: We've been fortunate to now be a recipient of state aid, because of the sparsity factor. We start our discussions early on, and we receive the information from the Class I's. Our superintendent sends out letters. They send back to him what they feel their budget will be. And then we correspond and have discussions with them and see if we're going to be able to meet that.. approve that. So far, because of our state aid, we've been able to do that.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Has that been in any respect what you would...have there been other benefits to that process other
Page 38
than finding a way to keep within the levy limitation? And that's primarily what drove that decision, of course. We had to find somewhat...
DEB FISCHER: The joint board meetings?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Yeah.
DEB FISCHER: In my district, we've had joint board meetings for some time, not always on a regular basis in the past. So because of the budgetary concerns, we do that now. But we discuss other issues as well. We have a curriculum coordination in Cherry County. We have for the elementary districts what's known as the Sorium (phonetic) Memorial Library, which purchases all the textbooks so we have coordination K-8. The funds for that come from all the federal land that we have within the county, and that's going down. But...so there's always been coordination in that respect. All the children within the system have the same textbooks at the elementary level.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Well ... and really, Deb, the reason I'm asking you is because if we have to make any changes, at least I want to find somebody that will tell me about a model that works. What works?
DEB FISCHER: I think the regional high school model works.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay.
DEB FISCHER: I'm a strong supporter for Class VI-Class I's. 'I think there are a number of small Class III's and Class II's in this state, instead of looking at reorganization or unification, should be looking at a Class VI model. They can keep their elementary schools in their towns, and they don't have the distances that we do, and then they can bring their districts together and have a larger high school, which can support a variety of activities and academics for the students there.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Well, I'm glad you made that point. I ... actually, we made that possible a couple years ago with a provision in a bill that allowed a II and III to break up into a I-VI. And quite frankly, I thought there Might be a number of school districts across the state that
Page 39
would take advantage of it, because of what I view as a very workable model in the Class I-Class VI relationship. But...
DEB FISCHER: I don't think people understand Class VI-Class I, is the problem. And if you view it as a regional high school, where you're drawing in from elementary districts and where you're all paying the same levy and you're voting for the same board, that would help. And it's not a strange idea. I think that the regional high school is the model in, what, twenty-some states.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Well, and I don't want to make anybody here that's from a Class II or III nervous. I'm not advocating the breakup of your school systems. But I hope you do understand that it is possible to change the way in which your school districts are organized, and that it is possible to achieve the kind of organization and structure that we've heard from Mrs. Fischer.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Well, and I think, Deb, you and I have had the conversation, I too was surprised we haven't seen more Class I-Class VI's, because not only did we make it possible, but they actually would get the incentive payments for going toward that system. So that has been a surprise. However, I think we get to the issue of extracurricular activities that you now have sometimes in those high schools that are very important to the people. And that seems to, I think, bring the hesitancy sometimes of going to the Class VI-Class I. But...
DEB FISCHER: Well, I'm happy to hear you are promoting us. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I live in a Class I-Class VI.
DEB FISCHER: I know you do.
SENATOR BOHLKE: So ... however, I did not... I did not attend one growing up. But sometimes senators do get confused. Another senator that lived in a Class VI once referred to them as their Class XII. And so I said, well, you see, that's when two VI's go together. (Laughter) But...
DEB FISCHER: Only for football games.
Page 40
SENATOR BOHLKE: But I do think that yours is a situation that has worked particularly well, because, like you said also, what you gained in state aid was significant. By being classified as a sparse school district, as I recall, I think Cherry County gained over $1 million.
DEB FISCHER: After we lost a million point three under the common levy.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Right. And you always remind me that that was after you lost a million on the common levy.
DEB FISCHER: Yes. Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR BOHLKE: And I always remind you, and we gave it back.
DEB FISCHER: Yes. Thank you very much.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Okay. Any other questions?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Is that our lesson on historical perspective for this afternoon?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes. Uh-huh. It is. Senator Stuhr.
SENATOR STUHR: Yes, I just have a quick comment. You said that you will be losing over $400,000 in ... do you see a ... foresee a possible problem working then with the Class I's?
DEB FISCHER: Hopefully not yet. I don't think that will hurt us yet. And as I said, we've ... we have good communication. Currently, five of the six members on the Class VI board have served on a Class I board previously. So there is a strong understanding there. And Valentine and Cherry County have always supported the rural area. So I think that will, continue, hopefully.
SENATOR STUHR: Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: A note of clarification. You said you lost that, but you also said you had a gain of valuation of 11 percent. Not that I just happened to remember that. But it's important for people to understand, I think, that when
Page 41
schools say that they lose state aid, now there are three reasons. It would be because the valuation had gone up in their district and therefore there was increased revenue from their local property tax, that they had possibly lost students, or the change we made in motor vehicle tax. Those are the three reasons that a school district would have lost state aid. But probably the biggest part would be the increase in valuation, which means you have more revenue coming in, which shouldn't then produce too difficult of a situation with your Class I's.
DEB FISCHER: It's always difficult to explain to taxpayers that their levy is going down but their taxes are going up.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Well, then maybe ... well, unless their levy goes down far enough. Any other questions from the committee? Thanks, Deb.
DEB FISCHER: Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: On deck we should have Farmer's Union. I was notified that there are other people here from Class VI's that would ... like I said, we're going till four o'clock. So you can move up to the front row if you're wishing to testify, and you can be ready to testify then.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: I have a handout (Exhibit G), a copy of my testimony. The first one is very short and to the point. Members of the Education Committee, I am Kevin Cooksley. Today, for the second time, I am hear wearing my hat on behalf of the-Nebraska State Grange. As a member of their executive board and vice chair of their education committee, I was asked to represent this oldest fraternal farm organization in the state and the nation today. We stand in firm opposition to LBs 1439 and 1447. It has long been the position of this organization, as well as most if not all of our sister organizations, to oppose mandatory school reorganization. These bills are of that nature. We, ask that they be given due consideration in the committee, and then killed. Thank you. Any questions?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Questions from the committee?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: That was about as clear as you can get.
Page 42
SENATOR BOHLKE: I see none.
KEVIN COOKSLEY: (Exhibit H) Now, if I may change hats back to my former self. Again, Senators, members of the committee, I am Kevin Cooksley again, this time as Class I's United board member, and as a Class I board member. And today I am here to oppose, for the record, LB 1213. It strikes me as rather ironic that at a time when rural communities in Nebraska are struggling to survive, much less grow, that the author of this bill would seek to bind communities together in such a way that they would either all die together or survive together. The argument could be made that this could make them stronger. But I choose to believe that just the opposite is more likely to occur. Let me tell you why. I make the analogy that the primary high school is like a big, stable ship, and the Class I's surrounding it are like small boats. In light of the present population decline in rural towns, in rural communities, tying your allowable growth ... budget growth to theirs has the same effect as if our boats were tied to theirs. That's fine, unless their boat happens to be the Titanic, in which case we all lose. That could happen if a major business were to leave the community and a major shift in population took place. I can make the same argument in a situation where a Class I lays in both a Class VI and a Class III system. If the primary high school is in the Class III and they have a positive growth rate, and the Class VI has a problem getting under the $1.10 lid, they would be required to pay their fair share anyway, and could be forced to cut funding from their own system in order to afford it, or else face a special election. One final observation. This bill could be viewed as a method of circumventing the positive effect that option enrollment may have on a Class I that is near an urban area. It could be used then as an artificial way of slowing or preventing growth in option student enrollment by limiting budget growth necessary to fund such enrollment increases. If so, wouldn't this bill be in conflict with the spirit of why option enrollment was created in the first place, letting competition create better educational opportunities for our children. I don't think this bill is fair to rural Nebraska, nor is it a practical bill. I urge you not to approve it. Thank you. Do you have any questions? I do have a copy of this testimony too. I forgot.
Page 43
SENATOR BOHLKE: All right. A page will hand that out. Questions from the committee? I see none. Thank you. Is Dick Kamm in the room? Would he raise his hand? He had sent a note up here. Dave, will you raise you raise your hand for a page, and I'll send a note back? Dave Lynn, would you raise your hand? You see the gentleman back there? Will you take that note back please, and then bring it back? Thank you. Go ahead.
SALLY HERRIN: Hi. I'm Dr. Sally Herrin, and I am a registered lobbyist for the Nebraska Farmer's Union. And because I'm not John Hansen, I'll be brief. (Laughter)
SENATOR BOHLKE: Ah, you get the award for the day.
SALLY HERRIN: I think so. All right. Okay.
SENATOR BOHLKE: We won't tell John. It's just on public record.
SALLY HERRIN: That's all right. That's all right. It's on public record. He won't have time to read it anyway. Nebraska Farmer's Union wishes to go on record as opposing LB 1447, LB 1439, and LB 1213 as it stands. And our opposition to these bills is based on our traditional opposition to tying state aid to education to compulsory reorganization of schools in any way. We also have historically supported local control as much as we possibly can in almost any forum, especially including budget authority for our schools. I would also add that Nebraska Farmer's Union believes that all children, urban and rural, are entitled to a quality education. We believe that the state of Nebraska has a legal and moral obligation to assure quality education to all Nebraska students, regardless of where they attend school or the financial resources of their parents. We believe that the distribution formula contained in LB 806 does not treat rural schools fairly. And one of the reasons, we think, is because at present, multi-school systems report performance by school system, and we would like to see all school houses in the state report individual test scores and cost per pupil to be fully accountable as to their individual performance. So to sum up, we feel that rather than pass legislation which is designed to tweak or to prop up a flawed distribution formula, that Nebraska's children and families would be better served by revisiting
Page 44
the school distribution formula. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you. Questions from the committee? I see none. Thank you. Nelson, I had you down next. You want to follow Jim on deck, or... ?
NELSON DAHL: I'll defer to Mr. Griess and follow him.
JIM GRIESS: Oh, I didn't know.
SENATOR BOHLKE: No, I didn't announce that.
JIM GRIESS: Okay.
SENATOR BOHLKE: So I was trying to make contact with some other people.
JIM GRIESS: (Exhibit I) Senator Bohlke and members of the committee, I'm Jim Griess. I represent the Nebraska State Education Association, and we're here testifying in a neutral position on LB 1447. We have roughly 646 teachermembers in Class I school districts across the state. We also have, of course, more than 22,000 teacher-members in other classes of school districts. And I want to assure anyone listening today that we value our Class I members as much as any other member in any other school district. That's why we're testifying in a neutral position on this bill. Legislative Bill 1447 would eliminate Class I school districts, but would not necessarily eliminate any attendance centers. Our concern with this bill flows out of our concern for the continued education of Nebraska's children and the employment of Nebraska's entire teaching corps. It is our understanding that this bill, in major part, a response to a lawsuit filed in Federal District Court by certain Class I districts. The plaintiffs allege that the laws governing the rights of Class I voters and the method by which Nebraska schools are funded as they affect Class I school districts are constitutionally flawed. Should the Federal Court decide this lawsuit in favor of the Class I school districts, it is possible that our entire state aid formula could be held unconstitutional. In that event, state aid for the 20002001 school year could be placed in jeopardy. And if that happened, our public schools could be left without any state aid until the matter was resolved by a special session
Page 45
of the Legislature. We believe that the education of our children should not be disrupted. And if this occurs, that's exactly what will happen. Thousands of teachers could also receive reduction-in-force notices, because school districts would not have the necessary funds to pay the contracts of those teachers, and we know that school board attorneys would advise their clients to make sure that they are not encumbered with a number of teacher contracts that obviously couldn't be paid for if the state aid wasn't available. This would be devastating to school staff morale and could result in the expenditure of funds for legal fees that would be totally counterproductive to school districts and to children. Obviously, if such a situation could be avoided, it would be in the best interest of our children and the thousands of teachers employed to serve them. It is our understanding that requiring Class I's to reorganize with a Class VI or other classes of school districts would solve this governance problem by eliminating any perceived inequities or disparities in their status as school district voters and patrons. It is also our understanding that LB 1447, as I mentioned earlier, does not close any current Class I attendance centers. It simply restructures the governance of those systems. While we want to solve the problems created by the lawsuit, because that is in the best interest of children across the state, we also want to make sure that teachers currently employed by Class I school districts be treated with fairness and equity. We believe that their long and faithful service to these schools should count for something. As I said, we represent 646 teachers who are employed by those school districts. But LB 1447 is totally silent on what is to become of the Class I teachers if the bill passes and then that results in school closings. Our membership records indicate that those 646 teachers deserve to have the same kind of protection as teachers now governed by the reorganization statutes that are already on the books. But this law or bill does not refer to this restructuring as a reorganization. And the reorganization statutes require notification by March 15, and obviously this bill may or may not be disposed of by that date. We believe that the best method of providing an orderly transition for these mergers of districts, if the Legislature chooses to pass LB 1447, is to guarantee that as a result of the reorganizations resulting from this bill, no current Class I attendance center would be closed for the 2000-2001 school year. Amending the bill to accomplish this
Page 46
purpose would, one, resolve the voter rights issues inherent in the lawsuit; keep all attendance centers open for one year; protect the employment of teachers while giving local districts 12 months to develop an orderly transition; and allow the local voters in the new districts to make the final decision regarding the number and location of the attendance centers within the new school district. As a result, we're proposing that the amendment which appears on page 3 of my testimony be added to the bill if the bill is to be passed. And it simply provides that each school building maintained by a Class I school district during the 1999-2000 school year shall remain open and operational for the 2000-2001 school year, but shall in all other aspects be part of and governed by the school district established pursuant to the act. And we've put a copy here of the page on the bill where the amendment would go. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you, Jim. Questions from the committee? I see none. Thank you. Nelson, welcome. Next on deck we should have Emil Schmitt. Is Smitty here? if not, then I have Cheney Public Schools. Mark.
NELSON DAHL: Thank you very much, Senator Bohlke, members of the Education Committee, the assembled audience. It's a pleasure to be here today. I came equipped with my black box of slides and data. I'd like to start out initially, if I could, my name is Nelson Dahl. I'm Superintendent of Schools at the Lynch Public Schools, the data and analysis person for the Friends of Rural Education, and a member of the Niobrara Valley Conference.
SENATOR BOHLKE: You promised a PowerPoint the next time you came.
NELSON DAHL: Well, this works, and that doesn't always, Senator.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Okay.
NELSON DAHL: And I know you've come to love this so.
SENATOR BOHLKE: But, yeah, we have to...
NELSON DAHL: There's a red button over there. Aha. I'd like, in the beginning, if I could, to move from the realm
Page 47
of supposition, as much as I can, to that of fact. What you see before you was prepared for an earlier law that came along to eliminate the Class I districts. I believe that law emanated out of Plattsmouth at the time. The small red triangles are the locations, placed by zip code by a program called Maplinks, of the Class I schools. So that they can all be shown with clarity, some of them had to be displaced by up to five miles, otherwise they overlap each other in some places. They're very close together. I think that you can see, there were 356 at that time, and the number is down below 350 at this time. And some of the locations, once again, have been moved very slightly, but they're close to where they should be. At that point, the black dots were -the locations of state senators. And the counties that had a state senator therein were shown in the pink. Because of the swift nature of the emergence of this bill, I wasn't It able to prepare a new one for you today, so I hope you can forgive me for that at this time. However, it can be seen clearly that the preponderance of Class I schools are along river systems where they were settled. They built those schools because no one else would. They educated their children in schools because no other government agency was going to come out and build them a school. Some of them predate the emergence of a Nebraska Legislature, and certainly predate the emergence of a unicameral Legislature. They were there prior to the Department of Education's coming into being, and prior to that of the U.S. Department of Education. They've been educating children for generations and generations and generations. The school district which employs me has a very small Class I school. And if I may, I will... I hope this hasn't gotten illegal here, Senator. If it has, I hope you'll forgive me for using my pocket laser. Is Redbird School, right there. Now, Redbird School is displaced slightly, because they use our zip code and they're actually in Holt County. That's Holt County, number three. They've been around a very long time. My wife graduated from that school, and graduated from the high school where I'm employed now. Her father was on the school board at that school after he came back from World War II. These people gave their lives, they fought, they defended their country, and they wanted to have their schools present. Now, some of what I've heard today, sadly ... and I don't want to digress... I hope we're not hearing that we're like Mississippi, or Louisiana, where people have Bought the simple right to vote, and in
Page 48
retaliation for that we're going to attack their house, close their church, or attack their school where they send their children, simply because we don't know how to fund the school. I do not believe that the Legislature in the year 2000 is less capable of finding a funding mechanism for these schools than the Legislature of 1950. 1 do not believe that you lack the wisdom to do that. And I do not believe these schools should be closed simply because we don't understand them. Given the privilege ... would you hand that over to Marilyn, please? Marilyn, please take off that and put this up. This is a slide that some of the senators have seen. And I don't want to go on infinitely here. I'll make this as brief as I know how. The particular slide that you're going to see here is some of the latest research about schools. And we heard this from the Colonel earlier. Small schools: a reform that works. There's enough evidence now of the devastating effects of large size on substantial numbers of youngsters. It seems morally questionable not to act on the evidence. If you look at the green, students at all grade levels learn more in small schools than in large schools. Now, we're not necessarily talking about district here. We've seen many of our colleagues from the large and powerful urban districts institute small school settings. And we. compliment them for that. We understand there's a thing called the Zoo School here in Lincoln. We understand there's an arts focus high school here in Lincoln. My compliments to my colleagues from Lincoln Public School for seeing how it is that small schools do work and meet specific needs. Students at all grade levels do better. Small schools are far more likely to be violence-free than large schools. Marilyn, if you could bring that up, the folks in the back can see it. This is extremely important to me today, and I think to all of us. The success of small schools is attributable to various features, all of which seem to emerge from three key factors. One, small size; two ... and I've read in a large newspaper of general circulation that one of the reasons to get rid of the Class I schools is because they are, quote, different. However, the unconventional organizational structure seems to be one of the things that leads to their very success. And they have a setting that operates more like a community than that of a bureaucracy. Well, I don't see myself as a bureaucrat, but perhaps the writers would. I'm a school administrator. I deal in school finance. At the Redbird School, which is an affiliate of ours, we see no problem.
Page 49
We work closely with Mrs. Rosenkranz, the teachers, they do not have a problem budgeting with us. They have never given us a moment's discomfort, nor we them, BO far as I know. I know of no superintendent in the Niobrara Valley Conference of Schools ... and I could show you a slide and show you where they are, if the ... Senator Bohlke asks me to... I know she likes these slides ... that is having difficulty with his Class I affiliate. So, in comes a proposal from an urban area to destroy the Class I schools. And we have to ask ourselves, what is the meaning of this? I've wondered about that for some time. If I could have one of the pages, Mrs. Bohlke, I will pass these (Exhibit J) out. Much to my fear, I did provide this to one state senator yesterday. And I knew I might be in trouble, because the state senator that got it in hand probably could demolish me at a whim, in terms of dealing with the statistics. What I have to show you today ... and let's leave this up ... on the first side, this is a ranking of Class I schools in terms of per ADM cost, average daily membership. This Class I school house, Merryland Park School in Cherry County, certainly appears, by all reports, to be costing an awful lot per pupil. In fact, that's fairly astronomical, although I am also quite certain that there are pupils within the urban areas that are costing even more per pupil. There are rooms in urban areas with more per pupil cost. Let's go down here a little bit. And what I'd like to say is that the question here is that we should pose on ourselves is , at what basis are we looking at closing the village schools? And by the way, there are no Class A schools in villages in Nebraska. If it's being done on the basis of cost, because we can't support the costs, what is the criteria? Why not eliminate the equally or more expensive Class A schools? It's notable that it appears that 244 of the 337 Class I schools operate at a lower cost than either Omaha Westside or several others; 152 schools cost less per pupil than Lincoln Public Schools. Now, this is not to denigrate my friends at Lincoln Public School in any way, shape, or form. Different schools have different costs, and they vary according to the time of the report. Or ... and I hope this is not the case, but this may be the appearance, whether overt or covert, that the idea here is to eliminate schools simply because of their ruralness. Because the schools we're talking about eliminating generally are not in urban areas, within the city limits of an urban zone. Marilyn, would you show a few more slides? I'd like to demonstrate graphically exactly
Page 50
what I'm talking about. Here's a whole bunch more of Class I schools. And you can see some of these, $7,925, looks high. Marilyn, please come to the next one, if you would, please. This was the one that was of extreme interest to me, Senators, and ladies and gentlemen. You're going to see and hear where we start to show Class I schools. Now, up to this point, we have 160 Class I schools, and here appears Lincoln Public Schools in Lancaster County, with a calculated per pupil cost, as shown in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Bureau of Educational Research Bulletin number 5... I hope I got that spat out right... $5,790 per pupil. So there's 162 showing below that, and we're going to see some of those, that would be of less cost. Now, there's 12 Class A school districts in the state of Nebraska. They educate more than half the pupils in the state. No one is proposing we close these schools. And yet, this huge 44,000-pupil schoolhouse down here at Omaha ... or, district, and Lincoln, have Class I schools running at less cost. This number, 174 ... and wish I was a better speaker...shows the median or midpoint of Class A and Class I schools. Those are your largest and smallest schools. That's the midpoint. Obviously, we have some large Class A districts above the medium (sic--median). What is the cut-off point if we're looking at doing this because of costs? Keep in mind, the enrollment of all of 300 small Class I schools is only 9,826 pupils. We're not talking large numbers of pupils here. We're talking less than one-fourth the enrollment of our state's premier district, Omaha Public Schools. We are not talking about large numbers of pupils, we are not talking about large numbers of teachers, we are not talking about costs that exceed some that we're allowing in Class A schools. So what becomes the criteria? That becomes the worry to me and to rural people. Marilyn, I think there's a couple more that you could show. If you go down just a little bit farther there, you can see the Class A midpoint. You can see from this that of the Class A schools, Columbus in Platte County, North Platte, Lincoln, Omaha Public Schools, are all above the midpoint cost of the Class A's alone. So I ask you, what is the criteria for attacking a school. Is it its cost? If I was asked, I have a complete display here available of the enrollment patterns of these schools. So we could look to see how many people are in each classroom of the small schools. Interestingly, to me, when we think of Class I schools, we oftentimes say, well, these are
Page 51
little schools, and they only have a few pupils, and they're costing a lot of money. Well, we can see they're not costing more per pupil than many of the majors. When we take a look at their enrollment patterns, we see also that they do not necessarily have more classrooms with less pupils than major schools. As Dr. Herrin inferred earlier, what we do have is a problem in reporting, because we do not see the classrooms in large school districts. Our Legislature has no idea of what the classroom staffing or the per pupil ratio is in huge districts. And maybe it's no one's business but their own, but if we're going to talk about costs and if we're going to talk about enrollment, we need to take a look at the lowest common denominator , which is either a school building or a school room. Those are the units of delivery of instruction. "District" is merely a political definition, ladies and gentlemen. Well, I've largely gotten where I would like to go with this today. And I appreciate your listening to me. We oppose any legislation that looks like it's being done to small schools rather than with the small schools. We believe that if there's to be a study, as has been proposed in one piece of legislation, that that study might just as well include the Class V school and the Class IV. Because if being different is the criteria, there is only one Class IV district in the state of Nebraska, and only one Class V. There are many Class I's.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you. Questions from the committee? I see none. Oh, excuse me.. Senator Suttle.
SENATOR SUTTLE: I just have one. Where is it written in any of these bills that the ... that Class I schools will be closed, or that they're trying to close Class I schools?
NELSON DAHL: Senator, I think that that's an exceptionally good question on your part. And I listened to Mr. Griess, for whom I have only the highest respect, indicating that they would remain open. If that were the intent, then give them a ten-year guarantee. If the committee were willing to do that, they might, being the Class I, would all willing to accept it. I believe that you should do it with them, not to them. What is gained if you take away their local governance and append them to a school building that may be 30 or 40 miles away? I listened very closely to Mrs. Fischer, who I respect highly, and she indicated that
Page 52
her district is larger than several states put together. Well, I don't believe that local control and local governance is well served by being so far away. These local parents know what's going on in their neighborhood. And I honor you for the question. After all, why do we have neighborhood schools in metropolitan areas of Omaha, or of Lincoln? They're lovely, but they're local schools. In our areas, they're far apart. How do we get control of them? I'm a bureaucrat. A school 40 miles away is very difficult to manage.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Other questions from the committee? I see none.
NELSON DAHL: Mrs. Bohlke, members of the committee, thank you very much. This is an emotionally charged issue. I appreciate the fact that you'd listen to my presentation so carefully.
SENATOR BOHLKE: We do everyone in the state. That's a unique system that oftentimes people from other states do not realize. And in Nebraska, when a bill is introduced, it's always public. The public has a chance to come testify, as we're doing today. And they find it hard to believe that we operate a system like that. But I think, judging from the turnout today, it seems to work very well. Welcome.
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: Great. Thank you. My name is Mark Traynowicz, and I'm a member of the Cheney school board. And today I'm here to speak as a parent, not as a board member. Cheney School, we're just on the southeast edge ... oh, did you want to call ... we're okay? Okay. We're just on the southeast edge of Lincoln, just outside the city limits. I'm here opposed to LB 1447, LB 1439, and LB 1213, I guess, as written. I'm not an attorney, and I don't pretend to be. I really... I guess I don't understand why these bills were proposed. But one thing, you did get our attention. As a school board member, I found out about this yesterday. So we notified all the parents, and we sent a note home with all the children saying, hey, Cheney School may close July 1st, 2000. And it got a lot of attention. So I guess I congratulate whoever for or that, because we're here. I guess if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't even be here. I've got a lot of bullet points. I was going to tell
Page 53
you how great Cheney School is. But I realize there's a lot of great schools out there, Class I schools and otherwise, so I really don't need to tell you about how great we are. But I would like to mention just a few bullet points. We are in Senator Raikes' district. I believe we have an efficient per pupil spending rate, okay. Our teacher pay is good. I mentioned someone ... or, I heard someone earlier saying that, you know, Class I's typically have bad teacher salaries. I believe our teacher salary is very comparable to the area K-12s. We offer quality education. With that, we've got a great school, but we also provide an opportunity for students to option in and out. And as great as I think this school is, we've got a lot of families that choose to option out of our school district, maybe because of convenience, maybe because they work in Lincoln and would rather take their child to school closer to where they work so it's easier for them. I don't know. But we've also got a lot of people that are optioning from Lincoln to our school, once they find out how great we are. So we offer both ways. So some people like us, some people don't. We really don't want to be considered ... we're not here today to say we're better or worse than our affiliated K-12s. We just want to be part of it. We talk about... in construction, I guess, we talk about partnering with contractors and consultants. You know, we want to partner with our high schools. Last few points I'd like to make. We do understand we can't spend a lot more than our neighboring schools and survive. We understand we need to keep our costs down. We believe we're an efficient and effective school district, and we're working hard to keep it that way. We operate at fair cost. We would like as much authority as possible to be able to make the decisions that we need to make to operate efficiently. Okay. And all I'm asking today is, give us an opportunity to continue to do that, to keep the Class I school districts open. That's all I have.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you, Mark. Questions? Senator Wickersham.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: You're... I take it you're affiliated with the Lincoln Public Schools? No?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: We are affiliated Lincoln, with Norris, with Waverly.
Page 54
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Oh. Okay.
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: Yeah. So, with the...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Which one is your primary high school?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: Lincoln.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. What... ?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: And again, with 1213, with the vote, that would kill us. If we had to try and go and levy for more money, we couldn't afford to hold a vote in those school districts.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Have you...what has been your experience in working with your ... with the LPS board, the primary high school board? Has that been a difficult... ?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: No. The contact we've had has been positive. I mean, we're not trying to do things underhanded. We're trying to keep everything on the table. We're trying to ... you know, if we want something or if we need something, we want to go to talk to them and work it out. We don't want to try and do it backhandedly. So no, we've got a good operating relationship with them. We don't... I guess we don't really meet with them at any normal interval, but I believe our relationship is good.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Senator Raikes.
SENATOR RAIKES: Mark, you ... the last I remember, you had about 65 students?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: We've got 68.
SENATOR RAIKES: Sixty-eight. And currently, your budget authority is determined how? You operate under the ... basically, the average cost per student of your affiliated district's elementary?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: From what I understand ... and I'm not here
Page 55
to be an authority ... but yeah, we're operating on a per pupil basis. Every year it's coming down. Last year, our budget lost about $80,000 on about a $480,000 budget. And this year, I just understand, it's down another $50,000.
SENATOR RAIKES: That's not aid money, that's your total budget?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: I believe so.
SENATOR RAIKES: And that was with roughly the same number of students?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: Actually, our student population is starting to go up. More people are finding out about us.
SENATOR RAIKES: So you found yourself having to spread more total budget ... or, excuse me, fewer total budget dollars over more students?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: That's what our problem is now, yes. We had to hire an extra teacher for this year that we had to find money for. And it will be the same next year. And you know, we foresee it getting worse. I mean, we're growing, and it's great, and I want to grow because of the per pupil basis. But it takes time to catch up, from what I understand. And again, I'm not an expert on all this.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: How many teachers do you have, Mark? You hired a new teacher to replace a teacher,...
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: No.
SENATOR BOHLKE: ... or you needed an additional?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: We needed an additional teacher. We have six teachers.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Six teachers... ?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: We have combined classrooms. K-1 is combined,...
Page 56
SENATOR BOHLKE: Do you have any paraprofessionals, or... ?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: Yes. We've got three paraprofessionals, I believe. I ... somewhere in that number.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Six teachers, three paraprofessionals? Okay. And you added one teacher this past year?
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: Yes.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Any other questions from the committee? I see none. Thank you.
MARK TRAYNOWICZ: Great. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: We know you aren't Smitty.
BRAD CABRERA: Pardon me?
SENATOR BOHLKE: We know you aren't Smitty.
BRAD CABRERA: Yeah. For the record, my name is Brad Cabrera, and I am testifying on behalf of the Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association. I am testifying in opposition to LBs 1439 and 1447. I'll make this brief. NRCSA has always taken a position of opposition to any forced reorganization. We also have taken a position with these two bills that the Class VI organization has been a very good organization and has been very successful. And we have taken a position that we feel that we would hate to see that disrupted. Also, by closing Class I's, this would disrupt some Class I affiliations that many of our districts and our organizations currently have. And this could create some potential difficulties for our existing systems. Our last point is that we would also ... We understand what the consideration is. We understand some of your rationale behind it. And we also want to make the point that in the event that you do look at this further, that we do oppose the merging of the Class I's with the primary high school district. We have many organizations ... or, many school districts that have Class I's that are affiliated with many districts rather than just one, and that could create a problem for our districts too. And that's all I have.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you, Brad. Questions from the
Page 57
committee? I see none. The note from the audience, would Duane, Myron, and Ron be up in the front, ready to testify pretty soon? Okay? I think following this lady in the ondeck chair.
ELIZABETH SARNO: Okay. Hi.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Hi.
ELIZABETH SARNO: Senator Bohlke and committee, thank you so much for letting me come today and address you. My name is Elizabeth Sarno, and I am in opposition of LB 1447. 1 guess I'm going to talk to you today about the quality of life issue I see this bill threatens. I'm an organic farmer, and I'm also a board member of Nebraska Sustainable Agricultural Society. Ironically, we just spent two days discussing the problems our rural communities are facing and how we can help to keep them strong and healthy. You know, more family farms and farmers are coming to our organization, because they feel the despair out there with our rural economy. In my opinion, this bill hurts our community. I hear our children and my child being discussed in terms of dollars. There are not enough dollars to pay for our Class I teacher. She has made families feel welcomed in our community, a child with a learning disability feel he has ability. To close our rural community schools means that I need to send my child to a town school. The nearest town school just rejected eight children. There's no room for them. There is room in our school and in our community. With $1.70 bushel corn, what more can you do the rural areas? Close our schools, our children will go to town schools. They will affiliate their affections with town people. They will not understand what it means to be part of a rural community. The mothers will start to work in town. Then they'll want to live in town. With no schools, no place to buy gas, what's the point of living out there? It's obvious that people in the rural ... urban areas do not understand where their food comes from and what it takes to raise it. I'd like to say that this bill lacks vision for how I'd like to see my rural community be in the 21st Century. I hope whoever introduced this bill realizes the profound effect it has on my rural community life. I have nothing more to say.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you. Questions from the committee? I see none. Thank you.
Page 58
ELIZABETH SARNO: Okay.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Pam.
PAM ECKSTEIN: Senator Bohlke, members of the committee, I'm from the Abie Public School, and I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about our situation. We are concerned about LB 1213. We want to know how this is going to work before it's passed, and how it will affect our school. My first question is how this bill will deal with Class I students' growth. I was just told that this is ... that the growth is on a district-specific and not a systemwide...
SENATOR BOHLKE: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think you didn't give your name for the record.
PAM ECKSTEIN: Oh, I'm Pam... I'm sorry.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I'm... I know your name, but...
PAM ECKSTEIN: I'm Pam Eckstein.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Sorry, Pam.
PAM ECKSTEIN: Sorry. This issue is not addressed in LB 806. And our school ... okay, and so there was no growth factor. Our school enrollment has quadrupled from 1997 to this year. Because there was no growth factor in the formula, we are now at a cost per student, not including special education, of less than $3,000 cost per student, while our affiliated high school has cost per student of $4,667. In LB 1213, if a Class I school enrollment doubles, is it set up so that they can hire a second teacher if they need it? The growth of the whole system does not reflect the growth of the Class I schools, and that needs to be addressed in the bill so that, as we have, we were not able to hire a second teacher that we needed this year. We have one teacher that is teaching 24 kids in a K through 8 system. And so that needs to make sure it's addressed in this bill. Now, for the percentage growth that is based on the system, if LB 1213 goes into effect next year, our school will be giving up our budgeted growth. Okay, because, again, there was no growth factor, we are just now .getting the benefits of previous growth. This year, we will
Page 59
have a 28 percent increase in our budget, which is still below what the budget that we should have had, according to LB 806. This year, the state gave us a budget of $82,587. This gives us an average cost per student of $3,933, not including special ed, again. Our affiliated high school has a cost per student of $4,667. If we had their cost per student, which was supposed ... which we were not supposed to go below, we would have an additional $16,423 in our budget, which is significant for our school. Our projected growth will continue with an average increase in our budget of 15 percent for the next three years. If LB 1213 is passed, we will lose all of this growth. Is this worth it for our school? Can it be addressed in 1213? Also, LB... if LB 1213 is passed, it will freeze us where we're at ... where we are at, which is below our high school's Cost per student average. It would be nice if we could at least be equal with our high school at the start of this bill. The budget override also concerns us. As LB 1213 is now, our school would have to go to four different school systems for a budget override. We cannot afford to pay for this. We need all the money we have now just to pay for our kids' education. Perhaps the ... a budget override could be ... why couldn't a budget override just affect our district and not the whole system, and be voted on by our district? Please consider these questions when you are ... and address them, when you are discussing LB 1213. And the last comment I have to make is that ... we had a new student recently join our school, less than two months ago. And at the start, he was fighting with the kids and pushing down, you know, younger kids, smaller kids. And the last time that I ... that we went to library, I saw him holding two small kindergarteners on his lap during the library reading hour. That's ... you know, that's the effect on the kids for Class I schools. Thank you. Are there any questions?
SENATOR BOHLKE: 'Thanks, Pam. Questions from the committee? Senator Raikes.
SENATOR RAIKES: I'm looking at the information Senator Jones handed out. You're Abie Public School?
PAM ECKSTEIN: Yes.
SENATOR RAIKES: And you have how many students?
Page 60
PAM ECKSTEIN: Right now, we will have 23 ... we will have ... we have 23 ... we have 23 students, starting tomorrow. We gained ... we just gained one.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. This shows a general fund budget of expenditures of about $124,000.
PAM ECKSTEIN: That was before this started. And I have to admit that the reason that is so high is because we did research and we knew that we would drop way down in our budget. We did a budget projection using the formula, and we knew it would drop us down, so we spent the budget that year so that we could get by with the lean years. Do you understand what I'm saying? We knew that our average costs would drop down, so we spent what we had that year so that we could get by when our budget was so low.
SENATOR RAIKES: Well, did you prepay teachers, or how did you spend it?
PAM ECKSTEIN: We prepaid some things, and bought books that we knew we'd be needing.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: That was so ... are you saying, so your per pupil cost would be up, so then, when it was averaged?
PAM ECKSTEIN: It ... when it's averaged, if you would take all the years together and average it, we're a lot lower. That ... if you took the three years and averaged them, it's not that high.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay.
PAM ECKSTEIN: Because last ... right now, we're under $3,000. We were just around $3,000 last year, not including special ed. We do have special ed students, so.
SENATOR RAIKES: Well, $3,000 times 23 students would be sixty-some thousand dollars.
PAM ECKSTEIN: Our budget this year for our kids is $63,588. And we needed two teachers. We could not get the money to ... you know, with that budget, we could not afford to hire
Page 61
two teachers. Our poor teacher. I mean, she ... that's a K through 8, and she's teaching 24 kids, and 9 of those are first graders.
SENATOR RAIKES: This information must be wrong then, because it says the 1999-2000 ... which is the current school year, right?
PAM ECKSTEIN: Well, I have...
SENATOR BOHLKE: We have to be on record. But it's indicated from the audience that that information that is ... that Senator Raikes has, is not correct. And $63,500, or whatever it...
PAM ECKSTEIN: Is our budget for this year.
SENATOR BOHLKE: ... is the budget for this year.
PAM ECKSTEIN: For this ... for this year. For the 199- 2000 school year.
SENATOR BOHLKE: What are your special... ?
PAM ECKSTEIN: And...
SENATOR BOHLKE: Do you know what your special ed expenditures are? Because that may be the ... that's all right if you don't know.
PAM ECKSTEIN: No, but we do ... we have a full-time aide for our special ed.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I have a feeling that that might be showing up in that total.
PAM ECKSTEIN: We do have a significant handicapped child.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I see none. Thank you.
MYRON BULLER: Chairman Bohlke, the rest of the members of the committee, my name is Myron Buller, from Atkinson, Nebraska. I'm a farmer in northern Holt County. I would like to express my opposition to LB 1437 and LB 1439.1
Page 62
serve on two school boards, which might raise eyebrows, but it has been checked out. I serve on a Class I...
SENATOR BOHLKE: We have to thank you twice then. We usually try to thank school board members.
MYRON BULLER: I serve on a Class I district, District 147. I also serve on the board of a Class VI, Atkinson-West Holt, District 25. Thank you for letting us appear before you today. It's my understanding of the intention of these two bills that it would dissolve the districts that I'm involved in and the districts that my five children attend. Obviously, this is of great concern to me. Our system ... to give you a little bit of background, our system covers 840 square miles. It's about 50 miles from one end to the other, which ... with approximately 540 students. Thirteen joined Class I districts send students to our Class VI. Access to our schools is mainly on nonhard surfaced roads, and at times can be very. difficult. Just a couple of points. one of the main concerns I have is how that these bills will actually affect our students. In most of our Class I's, students travel less than five miles to school, creating a community atmosphere which is proven to have a very beneficial effect on learning. Nearly every board member could call each student by their first name and their families' names. There is genuine concern for each student in attendance by the board members. If either of these bills became law, this closeness would be lost. While I'm sure that the new board members' intentions would be good, there would be difficulty in maintaining that personal contact that is so important to the development of each of our students. And secondly, as our situation stands right now, we provide an excellent education for our students and we ... if I can brag a little bit ... we do it very efficiently. We share a principal, special ed teacher, music program, sports activities and facilities, Internet communications between our 13 Class I schools. Our Class I's work hard to maintain a cohesiveness between the high school district and their own district. The relationship has "lended" itself to sharing budgetary resources between districts without any hostility, and has helped to develop a good working relationship between all districts involved and in our system. These bills would, in effect, end that relationship, -and would also create more distance between students Of individual Class I's. Because of the success of
Page 63
our schools over the last 32 years in west Holt and in that area, I would encourage you to kill these two bills that would have a very negative impact on our school systems. I thank you very much for your time. Are there any questions that you might have?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thanks. Myron, the system, the budget authority and that given to the Class VI, then, are you saying, works fairly well?
MYRON BULLER: I've been on the West Holt board for four years. I've been on the Class I board for six years. In my opinion, it works very well. We have had ... as far as I know of ... now, we have other districts that may not agree with this completely ... as far as I know, we have had no difficulties coming to agreement on finances.
SENATOR BOHLKE: And you had how many Class ... how many Class I's are in your... ?
MYRON BULLER: Thirteen.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thirteen. Okay. Thank you. Senator Wickersham.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Myron, if you recall, what's the levy for your Class I-Class VI?
MYRON BULLER: Last year was 0.99... it was just a little over 99, sir.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay.
MYRON BULLER: And If I'm wrong, my superintendent is right behind me.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Well, that...
SENATOR BOHLKE: He'll never correct a board member. (Laughter)
MYRON BULLER: Oh yes he will.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Well, that's probably close enough. And Myron, I don't support the bills that would close the,
Page 64
Class I's. But let me ask you for advice. I also want to make sure that no one pays more than the maximum levy for their schools, whether that's $1.10, or that's $1.00. 1 think that's fair to everybody. But I want to make sure that you have the school that you want. How am I going to do both? That's what I want advice about. How am I going to do both? How am I going to make sure you're not taxed out of existence and you still have the school that you want? How should I do that? How should I help you do that?
MYRON BULLER: A lot of times these kind of answers take me a week to think about.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Okay. Well, you can write me a letter later if you want.
MYRON BULLER: I ...
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: But that's the predicament that we're in, and I hope that people...
MYRON BULLER: I understand that.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: ... understand that.
MYRON BULLER: I understand that. And this would be my best answer, and I mean it with full respect for everyone involved here, because I don't believe anybody is just throwing bills out for fun here. In farmer's terms, I would say, let us do it ourselves. When it comes to ... when it comes to merging districts and making changes that need to be made, let us do it ourselves. It's happening already. Before the common levy came up, our Class I's were below the levy considerably. Now, the district that I live in, the taxes have gone way up because of common levy. And I'm not bringing those up. They I re there. They're fine. I would suggest that mergers are probably ... and, are probably going to happen, because of declining populations. Because of the growing size of farms, there are fewer and fewer people who actually farm the land. A lot of them live in town now and drive out to work. I honestly think it's going to happen on ,its own. I have a real problem with someone forcing it down my throat. And ... as you would, as anybody would. We do not want to be wasteful, we do not want to be special interest groups, as we might be labeled. That's not the point. Our
Page 65
point is, we want ... also want what you want. We want to educate our children, and we want to do it in the best possible way that we can. And we believe that if you will ... this is ... this may sound harsh ... leave us alone, and we will take care of it, and ... given the amount of money that you allot us and that you tell us we have to spend. I hope that's not taken in a bad sense, because it's not intended that way.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: No. No. I understand. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: No. Any other questions from the committee? Thank you for making the trip.
MYRON BULLER: Thank you.
RON WRIGHT: I'll be brief. I know...
SENATOR BOHLKE: Welcome. You've had a long wait.
RON WRIGHT: ... everyone is tired.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Oh, no. This is not particularly long for US. (Laugh)
RON WRIGHT: Anyhow, my name is Ron Wright, and I'm the principal of 15 of the 21 Class schools in Holt County, Nebraska. And Chairman Bohlke and members of the committee, thank you very much for letting me testify before you today. And I'm here today basically to tell you about some of the costs and some of the things we have done to these Class I schools. I know when you travel out of state, you go to South Dakota, Wyoming, or Montana, they ... when the educators in those states say, you're from Nebraska, you're from that state that has those small schools that give a good education to the elementary kids. And so I know we've had small schools for a long time. But anyhow, I want to talk a little bit about administrative costs for these here 15 schools that I'm the principal of, the facilities, the distance involved in the Class I schools of our county, the updated technology that we have, and the attitude of the Class I students. Number one, my administrative cost of these 15 schools is less than $20,000 a year. I develop policy for them, evaluate staff members, help with budgeting, conduct the school improvement program, visit
Page 66
each school every month to help with any problems, and do safety checks on our schools. This fall, I will be doing the first school report card for the State Department of Education. All of our schools are in good shape. Because of our safety checks and going over things, we should be in good shape for years to come. Most of the upkeep is done by the parents of the school and the board members from these Class I schools. We have no custodian, because the teacher is their own custodian. In Holt County, we have five schools that are 30 miles from the nearest high school. Valentine, Nebraska has some Class I schools that are 45 miles from their high school. As far as technology goes, 14 of the 15 schools I'm the principal for are on the Internet. I do the e-rate for all of our schools, trying to save our taxpayers some money for phone calls and Internet expenses. Attitude of the Class I students are one of the best. I've been in education for 28 years, and seven of those years were in big-city schools, where you were called names, bathrooms were set on fire, and weapons were found in lockers. Morals and values are two of the biggest things that are taught in our small schools today. Thank you very much.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you. Questions? Senator Wickersham.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Because you're an administrator I'm going to ask you a little different question than I asked Myron. But it follows up from the question I asked Myron. And basically, the issue is this. If our current system, the current law for the allocation of a scarce resource, in other words, the property taxes that can be raised within the maximum levy... if the system, if the current system for the allocation for that scarce resource is declared unconstitutional, do you have any recommendations to us for a different system for allocation? How could we find a way to have you and the schools that you represent work with others and allocate amongst yourselves that scarce resource, whatever dollars will be raised by a maximum levy in your school system? How can you suggest to us that we allocate those resources out to those schools in a fair way that produces the educational result that you want?
RON WRIGHT: Well, basically, in the 21 schools in Holt County right now, the Class I schools, they ... what they are doing to try to help the taxpayers save money is
Page 67
they're ... they're dropping ... they're losing a teacher, and what they do is hire a teacher's aide to save costs. And that's going to happen in, I think, five of our schools next year.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Yeah. But would you have any recommendations to us for changing the allocation system, the way the budgets are put together, the way the resources are allocated amongst the schools?
RON WRIGHT: So far, there hasn't been any problems.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: So you think the current system is working? Okay. But if it's declared unconstitutional, which it may be, by a federal judge, not a state judge, but by ... a federal judge may decide that it's unconstitutional. If the federal judge does that, what should ... how are we going to develop another allocation structure? That's what we're puzzling about. If a judge declares the system that we have now unconstitutional. even though you and others have told us it works, what other system could we find that would work that maybe the federal judge would approve? Do you have any ideas about that?
RON WRIGHT: Not right off hand.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM: Okay. Well, we're in the same boat. Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Ron, clear something up for me. When you said that you've tried to cut costs by ... what, a teacher retiring, or letting teachers go?
RON WRIGHT: Well, basically, we're losing students in these small schools, so the schools that have two teachers are dropping to one. And that's...
SENATOR BOHLKE: Oh, one teacher with a teacher's aide.
RON WRIGHT: Yes. Right.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I wanted to make that clear, that you weren't hiring a teacher's aide...
RON WRIGHT: No. No.
Page 68
SENATOR BOHLKE: ... for it, for a teacher.
RON WRIGHT: And that's happening in 5 of the 21 schools.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Senator Raikes.
SENATOR RAIKES: Ron, you said you work with 15 schools?
RON WRIGHT Fifteen out of the 21.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. And you mentioned $20,000. Is that per school, or is that for the whole 15? (Laughter)
RON WRIGHT: That's for the whole thing, Senator.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. And so how many students are involved?
RON WRIGHT: Oh, thereto ... the average is probably ten students per school.
SENATOR RAIKES: So your administrative cost then...
RON WRIGHT: Maybe 12.
SENATOR RAIKES: ... would be ... so there's roughly 150 to 170 students, something like that. So your administrative costs would be $20,000 divided by however... 160 students, whatever that works out.
RON WRIGHT: One hundred and sixty would be a good number.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. All right. Thanks.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Any other ... Senator Coordsen.
SENATOR COORDSEN: I've came to life. (Laughter)
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yeah , well, I don't know if that's good news or not. we're at eight past 4:00, I'll remind you, and I decided at 4:15 we're going to end this, because I think we've come to...
SENATOR COORDSEN: But since you have so much experience
Page 69
with so many Class I schools over such a large area, if the Legislature decided to provide the system that's recommended in 1447 or whatever, what would your guess of the reaction of those schools and what is currently the Class VI school? Do you think that the ... going into a Class III situation, that that number of Class I attendance centers would be ... remain? What's your gut feeling on that? And would there be cost savings by doing that?
RON WRIGHT: I think they're probably as efficient as you're going to get on cost-wise because those schools are in good shape. And most of the board members and the parents do the painting and take care of the improvements on the school. That's a good thing there. I don't think no money would be saved. I think what they're afraid of... see, you have three members on those there Class I boards, and... in the districts I'm affiliated with, you know. And part of...they have no problem getting along with the Class VI or with O'Neill school boards. I think what they would be afraid of, if this passed, then there would be no board members representing those schools, and then those six board members on 'those bigger schools could have the power to close that small school. And the sad thing about it ... as long as we've got enough kids there, and it's ... and if we can keep the cost down, we know those kids are getting the best education, you know. Because I think that's pretty well been proven, you know. But I think that's one of the things. They're afraid that they'll shut that small school down. And of course, you know what will happen. You know, once we lose them, they're gone, you know. And most of those schools are really in good shape. I mean, you know, they have two rooms, they have a small cafeteria downstairs. They were well designed, you know, and good study facilities.
SENATOR COORDSEN: One follow-up question. An area has been spoken to. What would be the length of the bus ride on a daily basis for the rural students if the local school district ... how many hours a day might be spent going back and forth from, we'll say, the most remote, the furthest away?
RON WRIGHT: Okay. The furthest away is right around 30 miles. And...
Page 70
SENATOR COORDSEN: And that doesn't include pickup time.
RON WRIGHT: ... I've been a principal for a long time. The main thing you want to watch out for is those little elem ... the little ones, you know, because they get very tired. High school kids is totally different, you know. They're used to driving and things like that. But you know, it's best to kind of keep them in one location where they only have to travel maybe 10 or 12 miles at the most, or 15, in my opinion.
SENATOR COORDSEN: Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Other questions? I see none. Thank you for coming.
RON WRIGHT: Thank you.
SENATOR BOHLKE: We have four minutes.
DUANE WITT: I'll be brief.
SENATOR BOHLKE: But I think someone is following you, so you have to be briefer.
DUANE WITT: Senator Bohlke and members of the committee, my name is Duane Witt. I'm here representing Northwest High School at Grand Island, in opposition to bills 1439 and 1447. The reason that we are particularly interested in these two bills is, we are unique in the state, and possibly in the United States, in the fact that our building as a Class VI lies within a Class III. And if you close the Class VI's, we are automatically out of existence, and we have 700 kids that are really dependent on what we do. And our Class I-Class VI K-12 system works exceptionally well. And we would...you know, we would be without recourse if you passed these two bills.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Being ... you're in the Grand Island city limits?
DUANE WITT: Absolutely.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yeah.
Page 71
DUANE WITT: And we provide ... we provide excellent education for the kids that are there, and we ... you know, we don't have any reason to exist if they... if you guys do this. Thank...
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you.
DUANE WITT: Any questions?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Questions? I see none. Thank you for being patient.
TRACY BRINKMAN: For the record, my name is Tracy Brinkman, and I'm a representative of the Manley Public Schools. Ladies and gentlemen of the Education Committee, distinguished senators, I brought to hold before you two common stones. One is a precious gem stone, a one carat diamond, the other is a common, ordinary rock I picked up in front of my house. And I pose this question to you: which stone is of more value? That question is neither profound nor puzzling to many of you. Appearance can mean so much. But I tell you the truth, the owner of a rock quarry considers this ordinary stone to be of far more value than a diamond. Let us therefore reason together that appearance and ownership both can be discriminating factors in our hearing today. Let's look at the basic discrimination of appearances. That glitz and ruckus get our attention is a profound understatement in our culture and society. Newer facilities and modern conveniences tout their cries in the education marketplace. But the residents surrounding Class I schools listen to a different cry. We understand that smaller and simpler is not only better for the children and their education, but also we understand it is better for our tax monies. We all know too well how inefficient our state and federal government are in comparison to our local branches of governing. We know by virtue of common sense that efficiency and accountability are easily facilitated amongst small groups, as compared to large throngs of people. We esteem and prefer our smaller size schools, with their commitment to ethicalness , education, and tradition. Let's look at the discrimination of ownership. The taxpayers of Class I schools are their true owners. Correct me if I'm ignorant, but I don't recall surrendering ownership of our schools. We refuse to succumb to a bureaucracy that would crush our hopes to govern ourselves.
Page 72
I personally am bewildered when I consider all the country school districts that died over the past 20 years. We refuse to allow our schools to become innocent bystanders to that same demise. We understand our right to taxation with representation. We're telling you that as our representatives we insist that you return to the Legislature with a strong message and a new agenda. Nothing but defending Class I schools will be tolerated or allowed. I chose these two stones in my illustration to drive home one last point. I trust, ladies and gentlemen, that this point will strike deep into your convictions. I want you to take into consideration that the common and the ordinary things we love should not be passed over and kicked out of the way like limestone rocks. We cannot afford to invalidate the customs and the heritages we love. The miracles of the ordinary hallow our schools' halls, from the time students arrive and learn to read, spell, and print, until the time they leave in sixth grade with a wellspring of information and expression. We really can't help ourselves. We refuse to surrender these children to the commonplace. We refuse to force them to endure an extra two hours of bussing at a season in their life when they should be chasing butterflies, exploring their imaginations, and pursuing their whimsies. The kids can't take it if we don't give it to them. Ladies and gentlemen, true courage is called for today. I'm asking that you vote no to Legislative Bill 1447, 1439, and 1213. And I trust that God will move your hearts, your minds, and your wills to administer true justice and mercy on behalf of Class I schools.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you. Questions? I see none. Thank you for coming today, and to all of you. I hope that by us being flexible with the rules, it allowed everyone who wanted to address the committee that possibility. I would also like to say to you that sometimes people say to us on the Education Committee, whether it be 1,300 people last night or the large number here, wow, how do you do that? And I say, we do it because we celebrate the fact that people care enough, whether they agree with you or not, to travel to Lincoln and make sure that their voice is heard. In the end, I think that ensures powerful and good public schools in the state of Nebraska. Thank you for your willingness to come. And that closes the hearings on LB 1001, 1056, 1213, 1439, and 1447. Thank you.