|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.B. 937
|
|
|
|
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 7, 2002
The Honorable Casper R. Taylor, Jr.
Speaker of the House
State House
Annapolis MD 21401
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, I have today
vetoed House Bill 937 - Education - Public School Facilities.
As introduced, House Bill 937 would have increased the State share of school
construction funds for any school in which more than 50% of the students in the
school are eligible for free and reduced price meals under federal law. The bill,
sponsored by Delegate Michael E. Busch, was an effort to provide an incentive for
local school systems to address the disparity in the condition of schools in poorer
neighborhoods when compared with schools in wealthier neighborhoods at the local
level. As amended and passed by the House of Delegates, the bill created a Task Force
to Study Public School Facilities. The Task Force was charged to examine the issue
that was raised in the bill as introduced, and other issues related to the State's public
school construction program, including the continuation of the Aging Schools
Program.
As amended by the Senate on the final weekend of the 2002 Session of the General
Assembly, the bill created the Task Force and codified a formula for distributing funds
under the Aging Schools Program, at the request of the Public School Construction
Program. Prior to the inclusion of this formula in House Bill 937, funds for the Aging
Schools Program had been distributed according to codified, specific dollar amounts
for each local jurisdiction. The House concurred in the Senate amendments on sine
die.
My decision to veto House Bill 937 is based on two concerns. The first is a concern for
the impact of the formula on many jurisdictions, small and large, across the State.
The second is rooted in the complex, contentious and practical history of K-12
education funding over the past 8 years. A brief historical review is helpful to
understanding these concerns.
In most communities, and for most elected officials, a quality K-12 education system
is the highest priority. Working together, we have increased the base budget for K-12
education by over $1.2 billion since I took office. Developing a consensus for increased
education funding has never been a challenge. But beneath the surface of that
consensus, there have always been competing ideas regarding how to allocate those
increased dollars. The debate has centered on the role of sound management versus
increased funding; the effectiveness of various programs and instructional methods;
and the unique needs of local school systems in our diverse State. These competing
interests have been clearly on display in every Session of the General Assembly since
1997. In every major education funding initiative since 1997, we have seen a similar
pattern. Legislation is introduced to address a specific concern or problem. The
legislation is amended (and funding is increased) to address issues that are important
to elected officials, members of the education community and local school systems. In
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 5270 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
