MARVIN MANDEL, Governor

3973

these local board determinations would control. The
bylaws of the State Board are uniform throughout the
State; and, aside from the material departure from the
established structure of decision making responsibility
authorized by this bill, it will also engender
disuniformity in transportation policy. Children in St.
Mary's County, in those situations to which the bill
applies, may well receive benefits not available to
children elsewhere in the State who are similarly
situated. This raises serious Constitutional questions
of equal protection, as well as being bad policy. Both
the State and the county Boards of Education are
supplanted in this area of educational responsibility.

There is, as indicated above, another problem with
the bill which independently would give rise to a veto.
Section 19 of Article 77 requires the State Board of
Education to transmit to the Governor an annual public
school budget, including "necessary costs of transporting
pupils to public schools as approved by the State
Superintendent of Schools." Section 124(b) provides that
the Comptroller shall pay, from the annual appropriations
to the General State School Fund, "the necessary costs of
transporting pupils to public schools when such
transportation is approved by the State Superintendent of
Schools."

The program of public school transportation is a
State funded one, the appropriation for which in fiscal
year 1976 is over $45,000,000. That is why, for purposes
of budgeting, the law requires such transportation to be
approved by the State Superintendent of Schools, acting
pursuant to State Board by—laws. The effect of Senate
Bill 1017, from a fiscal point of view, would be to allow
the new local board, by establishing its own criteria for
public transportation, to increase State expenditures for
this program on its own, and to remove such expenditures
from the jurisdiction of both the State Board of
Education and the State Superintendent of Schools.

If the program were locally funded and the county
desired to vest discretion as to scope in another board,
there would be less objection on fiscal grounds.
However, I cannot permit any local agency to have a
measure of ultimate discretionary authority with respect
to increasing State expenditures.

These considerations have led both the State
Superintendent of Schools and the Secretary of Budget and
Fiscal Planning to urge me to veto the bill. I believe
their concerns to be valid, and for these reasons, I have
vetoed Senate Bill 1017.

Sincerely