1286                                      VETOES

when our financial situation is more apparent, provision for increasing
the incentive fund above the $10 per pupil now provided."

I added, however, that "if such legislation is introduced, I shall
reserve the right to veto it—and indeed would veto it—if it were not
accompanied by assurance of more equitable assessments or authority
for assuming equitable assessments in arriving at the final figures on
distribution."

I had before me at that time—as did members of the General
Assembly—the reports of the Maryland State Debt and Finance
Commission and the Commission to Study Education and Finance.

Both Commissions recommended action at the State level to equalize
assessments of property among the various subdivisions to eliminate
existing inequalities and the disadvantages now suffered by sub-
divisions with the more realistic valuations.

The State Debt and Finance Commission, headed by Mr. W. Arthur
Grotz, stated: "Measures should be taken to require an equalization
of property values for all purposes related to the distribution of State
funds in order to correct unjustified inequities which now exist."

The Commission to Study Education and Finance, of which Mr.
Harry J. Green is Chairman, recommended that "no increase be made
in the Incentive Fund without accompanying legislation which will
effectively require the calculation of such increased aid to be made by
the use of a minimum percentage of property assessments against
fair market value."

The Legislature obviously gave no weight to those conclusions at
which the separate bi-partisah commissions of public-spirited citizens
arrived after arduous study and investigation.

When Senate Bill 340 was before the General Assembly, some pro-
ponents argued that it should not be considered in connection with
the need for assessment equalization because the proposed Incentive
Fund increase disregarded the established formula of $10 per student
in a subdivision, less the amount yielded by the assessment of 5 cents
on each $100 of property valuation, and merely sought to increase the
payment per enrolled student by $10.

That argument, in my opinion, has no sound basis. The bill, as
passed, still condones the evil of assessment inequalities, and you
can't cure an evil with a give-away program.

It shpuld be noted here that Senate Bill 340, as passed by the General
Assembly, would not become law, even if approved by me, until July 1,
1956.

The Legislature will convene in February, 1956, giving ample time to
enact a properly considered measure to increase the Incentive Fund
for school construction in connection with a sound revenue program
and with workable procedures for the equalizing of property assess-
ments for this purpose.

I assure you that Legislation passed under such circumstances
would be considered by me on its merits and in view of the interim
efforts of the political subdivisions to meet their school construction
problems which must, as both the Grotz and Green Commissions
pointed out, continue to be primarily the responsibilities of Baltimore
City and the 23 counties.

Sincerely,

(s) THEODORE R. MCKELDIN,

Governor
TRMcK:Q/jth