Rock Hill Schools Grassroots

Buying South Carolina

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:02:00 +0000

It has been a while since anything was posted on this site. With the General Assembly not in session there is very little news on the political scene to report. The major issue lately has been the saga of Governor Sanford and I am sure there was more than enough news in the media to keep everyone updated.
I have received a Blog today that I think everyone should be interested in from Ross Shealy. It is an update on the efforts of Howard Rich to buy South Carolina. A better term would be to buy the South Carolina General Assembly. This latest Blog from Shealy is an update on the funds received by the various candidates for office in 2008. Each election there has been additional members added to the General Assembly that has received funds from the Howard Rich connections. Make no mistake, there will be a push again this year to get a voucher bill passed.
I believe you will find it interesting to see how an organization in New York is willing to channel the funds they have to get people elected to public office in South Carolina.
You can access the blog at http://buyingsc.blogspot.com

Walter Brown

SCHOOL CHOICE

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:06:00 +0000

The Senate Subcommittee on Education held a hearing concerning two bills that were referred to the Senate Committee on Education. Bill S.520 sponsored by several Senators with the primary sponsor being Senator Ford. Bill S.607 with Senator Hayes as a sponsor. Senator Ford’s bill would create a tax credit/voucher for students attending private schools or home schooling and Senator Hayes’ bill creates schools of choice within the public school system.

I attended the hearing to speak against bill S.520 and support bill S.607. There have been varying reports on the number of people in attendance. There were 40 people signed up to speak at the hearing with a limit of 3 minutes each. Senator Hayes presided over the hearing and made sure each person signed up had an opportunity to speak. He had to extend the time of the meeting to make sure all were heard. While there were many that spoke in favor of S.520, most either were representing special needs students or had ties to existing private schools. In presenting their support some of the private schools brought students to the hearing. The public schools could not do this.

I think that a close study of the sponsors of S.520 reveals who is really behind this push. Of the seven sponsors listed on the bill six have received donations from the Howard Rich group. The total funds to these six for their campaigns in 2008 were $101,000. Why is it so important for a man from New York to support a tax credit/voucher system in South Carolina? For the last several years there have been bill introduced to create a voucher system in South Carolina. It is no secret that the Governor supports vouchers. The very same Governor that is holding up funds for schools and law enforcement.

School District 3 in Rock Hill has made progress in creating schools of choice within the district. This effort will continue as funding from the state is available.

Two very basic questions need to be ask of sponsors of bill S.520. First and most important is how many residents of South Carolina pay in excess of $2,500 in State Income Tax? The second question is why is it so important to stress that no state agency will have control of private schools accepting tax credit/vouchers? Public schools operate under many state and federal mandates in the name of accountability.

As citizens of South Carolina do you not believe that if your tax dollars fund private or religious schools they should also conform to the same state mandates as public schools?

Walter Brown

Bill S.520 and S.607

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:11:00 +0000

On Wednesday April 22 the K-12 Senate Subcommittee held a hearing on bills S.520 and S.607. Bill S.520 was a bill to create a voucher program for private schools and S.607 creates school choice within the public schools. Having attended the hearing and signing up to speak I am fully aware of the number of speakers heard. The hearing was opened and Senator Ford presented his bill, 520 and Senator Hayes presented a brief summary of his bill, 607. The ground rules were then laid out that each speaker would be allowed 3 minutes to comment for or against either bill. There were 40 speakers signed up to speak and the meeting lasted 2 1/2 hours. It was scheduled for 2 hours but Senator Hayes extended the time to allow everyone to be heard.

I have since seen reports that over 200 voiced support for bill 520. This is no doubt how they justify saving the public schools money if the bill is approved. It would take some strange math to make this happen. If 200 spoke for the bill it would have required roughly 10 hours for all to be heard and no one being heard in opposition. It did not happen. On Wednesday April 29 the subcommittee sent the two bills to the full committee. Bill 520 was sent with an unfavorable report and 607 with a favorable report.

Walter Brown

Appropriations Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:59:00 +0000

Bill H.3560, Appropriations Bill was finally passed by the Senate after midnight on Wednesday April 30. The bill now is returned to the House to consider the amendments placed in the bill by the Senate. As I watched the action on the floor of the Senate it became very obvious that the Sanford supporters were making every effort to block use of the stimulus funds for education. The amendments that were placed on the floor time after time were tabled. I think it would be worth the time to go to the SCGOV website and take a look at the Senate Journal for April 29. The majority of the amendments that were tabled ended in a roll call vote. It is interesting to scan this record and see how Mick Mulvaney voted. It is very clear that he will support the wishes of Mark Sanford and vote against most anything that supports public education.

Walter Brown

TAX CREDIT/VOUCHER

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:02:00 +0000

The Senate K-12 Education Subcommittee has scheduled a public hearing on the SC Educational Opportunity Act (S.520). The name keeps changing, originally it was "Put Parents in Charge" but the bottom line does not. A bill by any other name and different dialogue is still a voucher bill for private education. If memory serves me correctly, Senator Bob Ford, Charleston, had opposed this in the past. During his last re-election campaign he received heavy funding from the Howard Rich organizations and is now sponsoring this latest bill. Could there possibly be a connection between the funding and change of heart?

Walter Brown

SANFORD AND COMMITTEE

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:16:00 +0000

On March 31, 2009 the South Carolina Policy Council met with Mark Sanford and eleven members of the General Assembly to release a report on the danger of accepting the stimulus funds. It comes as no surprise that at least six of the eleven members of the General Assembly have their names on bills presently in committee that would allow tax credits/vouchers for private schools. I am also sure that there are others attending that support the bills even though not listed as a sponsor. The following is a list of the eleven:

D B Verdin, Senator; Phillip Shoopman, Senator; Kevin Bryant, Senator; Lee Bright, Senator; Thomas Davis, Senator; Lawrence Grooms, Senator; Mick Mulvaney, Senator; Shane Martin, Senator; Garry Smith, Rep.; Tommy Stringer, Rep.; and Bill Wylie, Rep. The ones shown in bold each have their names on tax credit/voucher bills. Mulvaney has been a strong supporter of these bills in the past.

What is the real reason that our Governor and these eleven oppose accepting the stimulus funds? Is it really a concern about the debt of our state in future years? Has it not been made clear that accept or decline the funds the citizens of this state will pay for them? Is there a much larger issue that has not been expressed? Does it not seem strange that at least eight of the ones supporting Sanford also support tax credits/vouchers?

How do you damage public education? You first reduce funding and force higher class sizes. You criticise our public schools and report only half truths about performance. When all else fails, even with Howard Rich's backing, you further reduce funding to the schools and force employee layoffs. This is what I believe is the real motive behind Mark Sanford's refusal to accept stimulus funds. He has attempted everything else, what is next?

Walter brown

STIMULUS FUNDS

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:02:00 +0000

By now, I am sure that almost everyone in South Carolina is aware of Governor Sanford's games concerning whether to accept the stimulus funds or not. The Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell had the following to say about the acceptance of stimulus funds.

"I'm concerned about the colleges, but what I'm more concerned about is I expect the federal court to order us to release prisoners because we're not going to have the money to keep prisons open," Harrell said. "I expect public schools around the state to have to lay off at least the 1,700 teachers I heard this morning. The numbers I've heard go as high as four to five thousand teachers as a result of this."

Sanford's role in certifying the cash frustrates Harrell.
On Monday, Sanford signed off on assurances that bring $50.5 million in energy and weatherization spending for the state.
Last week, he certified the state wouldn't reduce state spending on highway projects as it uses $463 million in federal highway funds. And in February, he signed off on adding $25 weekly to unemployment checks. No estimate is available for the expected tab on that, but the state already has paid out $11.3 million in extra benefits.
"He signed off on the energy efficiency money but won't sign off on the K-through-12 and prisons money. That makes no sense," Harrell said. "I am very frustrated about this because we're talking about affecting lives of people in this state in a very bad way. ... He should either be rejecting the entire amount of money or not. For him to just pick out a slice of it - the part that affects public schools and law enforcement in this state - is a terrible mistake."

Make no mistake, Governor Sanford has made every effort to force school vouchers or other means for paying for private schools a the K-12 level down the throats of those of us in South Carolina. Does he believe that not accepting the stimulus funds will aid in this battle? Is his real goal to kill public education in South Carolina?

It matters little if the funds are accepted or not as to who will be responsible for repaying the debt. The residents of South Carolina will be paying for many years. The failure of Sanford not accepting these funds means jobs will be saved in other states and lost in SC thanks to the funds designated for our state going to others.

Walter Brown

VOUCHERS

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:45:00 +0000

I posted a report on Senate Bill S.520 concerning tax credits, scholarships or vouchers that had been introduced and was now residing in the Committee on Education. It appears that select members of the House, never seeing a voucher bill they didn't like, have now posted bill H.3802 which has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. It is almost identical in wording to S.520. Perhaps Gov. Sanford wrote both bills. Two members of the York County Delegation are signed on as co-sponsors of the House bill. It comes as no surprise that Representatives Simrill and Delleney are both once again pushing for your tax dollars to fund private education. Do not be fooled by the wording in the bill that says for private or public schools. If a student moves from an existing failing public school to another school in the district no scholarship is required. They would not have to pay tuition, the base student cost is paid to the district by the state. Perhaps the members of the House are unaware of this. From the word I have received from members of our delegation I do not see these bills being passed. Certainly not in the Senate. Senator Ford sponsor of the Senate Bill praises this bill as opening the door to students that cannot otherwise afford private schools. Read the House bill carefully and you find that the tuition must be paid and then a tax credit is given. How many residents of South Carolina will pay $2,500 in taxes to the state? Where will these dollars come from in the state budget when public education is being stripped to the bone of funds?

SENATE BILL 520

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:17:00 +0000

If you thought that tax credits (vouchers) for independent schools was a dead issue this year, think again. Senators Ford, Bryant, Thomas, Davis, Bright, Fair, Ryberg and Rose are sponsors of Bill 520 that was introduced in the Senate on March 4, 2009. It now resides in the Senate Committee on Education.
The bill would allow any student enrolled in a public school in the state of South Carolina and is a South Carolina resident to transfer to another public school or independent school if their present school receives a rating of "below average" or "school-at-risk" as it absolute grade on its most recent annual report card. The bill also sets standards for scholarship organizations. A parent or guardian who teaches one or more children at home as authorized by State Law may take a tax credit of up to one thousand dollars per home school student for instruction related expenditures. There is a limit of twenty-five million dollars per tax year, indexed to inflation, allowed under this bill.
I find it interesting that a section is devoted to limitations of independent schools required by the state. An article specifically states that the Department of Education, Department of Revenue, State Budget and Control Board, or any other state agency may not regulate the educational program of a receiving independent school that accepts students pursuant to this article. It further states that one purpose of this article is to allow maximum freedom to parents and independent schools to respond to and provide for the educational needs of children without governmental control. How about public schools?
Do you not find it interesting that public schools have asked for funding flexibility to help during the economic down turn because of the restrictions imposed by State Law? I am sure these very same Senators that drafted this piece of legislation would be the first to vote for additional limitations on the public schools.

Walter Brown

TAXES

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:08:00 +0000

Have you ever heard a member of our County Delegation say, "I will never vote for a tax increase"? I have heard this statement numerous times. A close examination of their voting record, when recorded, will reveal they consistently vote against tax increases. What the record will not reveal is entities at the local level are forced to increase taxes because of their actions. Since becoming a member of the Rock Hill School Board I have seen the ripple effect caused by actions at both the state and federal levels. School districts across the state are constantly forced to find funding for mandates placed on them. The latest action was the passing of ACT 388. The removal of the ability of local boards to collect property tax on owner occupied homes has forced districts to increase taxes on business. This, bottom line, is a tax increase that will be passed on to the consumer. The school districts of York County have been known for quality education for years. The gains that have occurred in test scores do not come without a cost. The pupil to teacher ratio in the classroom makes possible increased individual attention as the ratio goes down which results in higher pupil performance. To achieve this requires more teachers in the classroom. The economic issues facing our country today will no doubt result in higher ratios in the classroom. When a state or federal representative tells you they will never vote for a tax increase, ask them why they have. Point out to them that their votes on mandates without adequate funding and the removal of home rule from local entities does raise taxes. Funds have to be found to maintain the performance our district has come to expect in education. The only option left for school districts is to impose tax on the area businesses. An indirect tax to the consumer. Ask your representatives to step up to the plate and accept their responsibilities by returning local control and funding mandates fully. This will no doubt never happen because they would then have to cast that vote for the record to raise taxes and not pass the responsibility to someone else.

Walter Brown

STIMULUS FUNDS

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:03:00 +0000

The South Carolina School Board Association has sent out an update on the amounts and suggested distribution of the stimulus funds. The suggested distribution comes from information from the House Ways and Means Committee and the proposed budget for 2009/10 fiscal year. It must be kept in mind that until the Governor or other authorized person or body makes application for these funds the state will receive ZERO. The following is the latest available information.

Federal stimulus directs resources to SC schools
President Obama on February 17 signed into law the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) in an effort to stimulate the economy and to assist states experiencing budget shortfalls in crucial sectors, including public education. The ARRA includes provisions for investments in education designed to help school districts avoid cuts in services; retain teachers and personnel; and address school repairs and modernization.
According to information from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), South Carolina is to receive some $694 million in state stabilization funds, upon the Governor’s application to DOE. Under the ARRA, 81.8 percent ($567.6 million) is for K-12 education for fiscal years 2009, 10 and 11. In each of these years, the state must use these funds to restore the level of state support provided through the state’s primary funding formula (the Education Finance Act) to the greater of the Fiscal Year 2008 or 09 levels. The remaining 18.2 percent ($126.3 million) is for public safety and other government services, including higher education, and may include public school facilities modernization, renovation, or repair.
In addition to state stabilization funds, the State Department of Education (SDE) reports that South Carolina is to receive $173.2 million in IDEA Part B grants; $142.8 million in ESEA Title I grants; $9.1 million in ESEA Title II grants; $615,000 for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance; and $43.5 million in ESEA Title I School Improvement funds (upon application).

Ways and Means use of stimulus money
The House Ways and Means Committee gave final approval February 19 to its $5.6 billion spending plan for 2009-10. Mixed with the debate was how to include federal stimulus funds.
The committee reduced the Education Finance Act (EFA) by $93 million to reflect a state "maintenance of effort" of EFA spending at least at the FY 2006 level. This was, according to committee leadership, a prerequisite for accessing ARRA stabilization funds.
As a result, they allocated $219.3 million in federal stabilization money to the following:
• $166.6 million into EFA, for a base student cost for next year of $2,342. This represents an increase of $105 per student from the current level of $2,237. The BSC should be $2,578.
• $17.5 million for school bus transportation.
• $17.3 million for the 4-year-old kindergarten program.
• $4.5 million for the state assessment program.
• $13.4 million for the National Board Certification Incentive.
Some $196.9 million in stimulus funds for Title 1 and IDEA spending is slated to flow directly to districts from the federal government, according to Ways and Means. So, it appears at this time that $323.2 million in federal stimulus money is marked for K-12 public schools in 2009-10.
Finally, Education Improvement Act (EIA) funds are estimated to be down an additional $23.5 million for 2009-10, resulting in across-the-board reductions in all program categories.

Federal help for facilities
The ARRA does not include a specific allocation for new school construction. As noted above, 18.2 percent of the stabilization funds coming to South Carolina may include money to K-12 education for modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities. SDE is advising districts to begin compiling information on local projects pending federal guidance on application procedures. Districts will be competing with "other government services" and higher education for these funds. In addition, the ARRA will provide $24.8 billion nationally in bond authority to states and local governments for school construction and modernization through the Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) program, and a Qualified School Construction Bond program, a new category of tax credit bonds for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of public school facilities, or the acquisition of land on which a public school will be constructed.

Bills of Note
S.12, a bill that sets up a state commission to propose an overhaul of the state tax code has passed the Senate and is in the House. The bill creates a tax study panel to study the state’s laws in an effort to modernize the code. The 11-member panel would make recommendations on tax law changes to include a review of state sales tax exemptions. H.3179, the SC Farm to School Program Act, passed the House February 27 and was sent to the Senate. S.107, a bill to criminalize public and private school employee sexual relations with enrolled students 16 years of age or older, is in front of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on March 4

Walter Brown

LEGISLATIVE REPLIES

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:05:00 +0000

The following paragraphs are from the South Carolina Code of Laws as it relates to sales tax.
A member of our community contacted two members of our County Delegation concerning a bill before the House Ways and Means Committee and two residing in the Senate Finance Committee. I think that it is interesting to note that neither of them feel these bills are diverting funds from education when the language is very clear that the sales tax on vehicles must be used for education only.

SECTION 2. Article 25, Chapter 36, Title 12 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 12-36-2647. (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 59-21-1010, an amount as provided in subsection (B)(1) of this section of sales, use, and casual excise tax revenues derived from the sale, use, or titling of a vehicle required to be licensed and registered by the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, otherwise required to be credited as provided pursuant to Section 59-21-1010, instead must be credited to the State Non-Federal Aid Highway Fund established pursuant to Section 57-11-20. Revenues credited to the State Non-Federal Aid Highway Fund pursuant to this section must be used exclusively for highway, road, and bridge maintenance.

ARTICLE 9.
SALES TAX REVENUES FOR SCHOOLS

SECTION 59‑21‑1010. Disposition and allocation of revenues; special vote required to amend or repeal this section.

(A) The revenue derived from Sections 12‑36‑2620(1) and 12‑36‑2630(1) must be remitted to the State Treasurer to be credited to the state public school building fund for the purposes provided for in Article 3 of Chapter 21 of Title 59 and any sum above that amount must be placed to the credit of the general fund of the State and must be used for school purposes only.
(B) The revenue derived from Sections 12‑36‑2620(2), 12‑36‑2630(2), and 12‑36‑2640(2) must be deposited by the State Treasurer in the South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984 Fund as a fund separate and distinct from the general fund of the State. All unappropriated money in this fund and earning on investments from this fund must remain part of the separate fund and must not be deposited in the general fund except as provided for in this section. Money from this fund may be spent only for elementary and secondary school purposes. Any change in the management or use of this fund for other than elementary and secondary education is permitted only by a two‑thirds vote provided in this section.

Here are the explanations from the House member.

First response

"H.3414 does not divert funds from education rather it targets funding for roads based on the sales tax from the sales of vehicles in South Carolina."

Second response when confronted with the Code of Laws.

"3414 directs funds for highways verses taking the money from the general fund at budget time. Using the logic of diversion then anything we spent money on other than education would be considered diverting funds.

The education allocations are not changed due to 3414."

The Senators response was:

"Thanks very much for writing about S. 101/S. 238. I have gotten a good many e-mail about these bills, and apparently there is some bad information circulating about the impact these bills will have on education funding. Please excuse my delay in getting back to you...but I wanted to make sure I knew exactly what was going on with these bills.
Simply put, the bills propose to take the money that is generated each year from the sale on new cars, and dedicate that money to road and bridge maintenance and construction. They would move about $100 million per year to roads and bridges, without raising any taxes.

Despite what I admit seems to be some confusing language in the bills, neither of these takes any money that was otherwise dedicated for education.

I am not entirely sure where the miscommunication started. But I have spoken at some length with the bill's sponsor and with Senate staff, and they assure me that NO dedicated education funds would be impacted by these bills.

I hope this helps straighten out some confusion on what I believe to be a pretty good attempt at helping us fund badly needed infrastructure in this state.

Thanks again for taking the time to write. You'd be surprised at how few people do that. If you've got any other inquiries, or follow-ups on this matter, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me."

I do not know the number of vehicles sold in South Carolina each year, but the sale of 1,000 vehicles generating $300 in sales tax would move $300,000 out of education. The $300 figure is the maximum charged on vehicles.

Will these bills divert funds from education to roads? I believe the average person reading these bills will say yes.

Walter Brown

SALES TAX

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:55:00 +0000

At a time when public education is being hit the hardest by budget cuts Senators McConnell and Rose have introduced a bill, 238, that will reduce funds even further.

Bill 238 was introduced and read the first time in the Senate on 1/13/2009 and referred to the Committee on Finance. This bill would transfer all sales tax paid on motor vehicles from education to the State Highway Fund. Section 59-21-1010(A) provides for these funds to be credited for education purposes only.

Senators Wes Hayes and Harvey Peeler are both on the Finance Committee.

The erosion of educational funding must be stopped.

Walter Brown

VOUCHER ALERT

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:53:00 +0000

If anyone thought the voucher issue, "School Choice" as Gov. Sanford now likes to refer to it was dead read today's Herald. In an article detailing what Mark Sanford hopes to accomplish in his final two years leaves no doubt about his plans to push school vouchers. He feels that there is enough change in the General Assembly to perhaps make some headway with his plan.

I find it interesting that he can even suggest that this is a good idea with the budget cuts that EVERY state agency has been hit with this budget year. It seems that his rational is that with so many people loosing their jobs that may now have children in private schools, they could move them to public schools and create additional expense for the state. Has he not considered the fact that if one thousand students receive a voucher or tax credit for $2,500 for a private school it will cost the state $2,500,000 dollars? The schools and classrooms that the one thousand students would come out of would still have to be maintained and no reduction in expense would be realized by the school districts. Keep in mind the same individual, Howard Rich, will be throwing money into the pool to make this happen.

Mark Sanford says he will also push to eliminate certain taxes.

Do not feel that it is too early to contact members of the General Assembly. The time is now!! Do not let them cast a vote and say, " I did not hear any opposition from people in my district". There are members of the York County Delegation that supports vouchers as a personal belief. Share some facts with them about the damage to the budget crisis we now have. Start now with the telephone calls and letters to members of the General Assembly.

SALES TAX

noreply@blogger.com (Walter Brown) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:55:00 +0000

The e-mail below was sent to Mick Mulvaney a candidate for the Senatorial seat now held by Sen. Greg Gregory. The area represented by this seat includes areas of both Fort Mill and Rock Hill School Districts. I have posted previous comments concerning this. The questions previously raised are even more important now than when this e-mail was sent, June 25, 2008. I have not received a reply. School districts across the state are now faced with cuts in funding from the state because funds from sales tax and other sources are coming in below projections. The big question that I now have is; if funds were available to transfer sales tax paid on automotive purchases for road work,why are they not being used to offset these cuts.

Walter Brown

Mick:

Thank you for supplying your business e-mail.

One of the concerns I have concerning this is it appears the issue was placed in the hands of the budget committee. I am aware that with any 2/3 vote of total membership the changes proposed by the House are within the laws of the state. I do have serious concerns as stated in my previous e-mail that once funds are transferred around it never seems to stop. I also think that the movement of funds as provided in HB 4549 is really a "shell game".

As I pointed out in my previous e-mail, if sections 59-21-1010 (A) or (B) are not changed how can any funds be moved? I would appreciate answers to this along with the other questions raised in my previous e-mail. I know that the answers to most of this is not a legal issue. I do feel that an answer to the first question raised above is. I would like to see a legal opinion on it.

Thank you for your effort and follow up on this.

Walter Brown