|
be and if he errs on the side of 15 or 20 or
100 or 200, why he has made the best guess
he can, but he is usually going to guess on
the conservative side.
Now, you multiply that 24 times, and you
get that estimate. What happens if they
guess two or three hundred or a thousand
children more than actually are in school?
Nothing. The money goes right back to the
State. It is the state's money. It cannot be
spent. It cannot be thrown down the drain.
It goes right back to the State of Mary-
land, so literally it is a bookkeeping ar-
rangement.
Now, if you do not like the figure of
$370 per year per child per county, then all
you have to do is change the law. The
legislature may do so, only it cannot change
it right at the time when you are in the
midst of this gigantic enterprise of putting all these figures together.
In the simplest way, this is what is
meant by the mandatory provision. It like-
wise relates to something that is much too
complicated to discuss at this point, but it
deals with the equalization formula.
I used to say at the time of the Commis-
sion Report which bears my name that
there were only seven people in the State
who understood the meaning of the equali-
zation formula. I think now that they have
complicated it to such an extent that sev-
eral have forgotten its meaning, but new
ones have learned it so it is about the
same.
But in any event, the equalization for-
mula as well as other matters relating to
the schools are what is meant by the ap-
propriations as provided by law.
It goes to other programs relating to the
children. But bear this in mind, that there
is not one single dollar of these appropria-
tions to the school funds of the various
counties which, if over-estimated in any
way, deprives the State of money when not
expended. It goes right back into the state's
surplus.
Sometimes the budget director has felt
that there was an over-estimate. Sometimes
he has been right. Under an attorney gen-
eral's opinion, it is made clear that the
school authorities have every right to have
these estimates of theirs and their budgets
scrutinized by the governor and by his
staff, and I assure you they not only scru-
tinize it but they go through a terrific
hassle in order to make sure that their
money is accurately estimated within the
bounds of human endeavor in the light of
|
the facilities and the facts that are then
available. So it is not to be assumed that
this is some kind of an untouchable sacred
cow provision in the constitution. It is just
that we have, from the moment we ob-
tained our executive budget, said that the
school system shall be fully and completely
protected by law.
If you want to change the law, do it,
except that the school system will have that
one year of leeway and in that leeway,
they can adjust to whatever the change of
the law will be.
All the budget requires is what the law
says shall be in it. And not all of the
school provisions are mandatory, just as I
have related to you. We have provided
what they shall be.
Really what it amounts to is that the
school officials have that one year leeway
in making all these estimates and as I
repeat, if these are wrong, the money goes
back to the State.
Now, the Committee has voted to retain
this provision in the budget, and we hope
no successful effort will be made to change
this. I will, of course, if one is made, de-
bate this much more fully.
Now, on the subject of the judiciary as
I stated a few minutes ago and of the
judge of the superior court — because un-
der the draft provision at that time there
was an indication that the chief judge of
the superior court would be the chief ad-
ministrative official — we would say let us
pass it as it is with a recommendation to
the Committee on Style.
At the moment I would say it should be
the chief judge of the Court of Appeals,
or as delegated, or in some way cover it by
giving the authority to the chief judge, and
whoever his chief administrative officer is
would be the one who would submit it.
Of course with respect to the legislature
we have already spoken. Now comes the
big problem. I do not know of anything
that the legislature does that is as im-
portant as its scrutiny of the budget, and
I do not know of anything that is more
frustrating to the members of the General
Assembly than its examination of the
budget.
We spent hours and days with them
over and over again discussing this matter.
We are hopeful that with the new era that
we hope is dawning, the legislature will
have adequate staff, that there will be in-
terim work done without waiting for the
|
