2862

VETOES

Public Education — Finance and Reports

FOR the purpose of [[adding Somerset County to those
counties who count kindergarten pupils as

full—time]] allowing Somerset County to count

certain kindergarten pupils as full—time in the

definition of "pupils" for purposes of State
financial assistance.

May 17, 1976.
Honorable John Hanson Briscoe
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, I have today vetoed House Bill
2107.

This bill amends the definition of "pupils enrolled"
in the current expense formula for State support of
public education. State aid under that formula is based
in part upon the number of "pupils enrolled" in each
local school system on the previous September 30. All
pupils enrolled in grades 1—12 and, except in Garrett
County, one-half of the pupils enrolled in Kindergarten
are counted as "pupils enrolled". In Garrett County, all
pupils enrolled in kindergarten are counted since,
because of unusual transportation problems, that county
has a full time, rather than a part time, kindergarten
program for its children.

House Bill 2107 provides that, in Somerset County,
all children enrolled in a full time kindergarten program
and one—half of the children enrolled in a part time
program will be counted as "pupils enrolled". The effect
of this change would be to increase State aid to Somerset
County by approximately $50,000 a year.

I have two objections to the bill. First, excluding
Garrett, there are four other subdivisions that have full
time kindergarten programs — Baltimore City and Charles,
St. Mary's, and Wicomico Counties. It would be unfair to
these subdivisions to provide this additional benefit to
Somerset County and not provide it also to them. If this
bill is signed, therefore, the inevitable result will be
similar legislation next year for the other four
subdivisions, the cost of which to the State would be
significantly greater than the $50,000 to Somerset
County.

My second objection is that, unlike the situation in
Garrett County, the impetus for this extended benefit to