Illustrated Daily; 6070; Education Reform and Funding

The package, as a whole, is pretty much what it's very good, there are a number of very negative things that could have been included in there that weren't, if we could just get the tenure issue worked out and provide some measure of due process for teachers being terminated, we could have one of the best education reform packages in the nation. The Illustrated Daily, Managing Editor How Roads. Good evening. It has been a politically touchy subject from the very beginning, educational reform and educational funding, but since their 1985 session, those who control the state's 37th legislature have always seen the two, that is, educational reform and funding, linked. Yesterday, the state senate gave preliminary approval to a set of proposals which had been developed and recommended by the legislature's public school reform committee. Interestingly,

however, a funding measure was not a part of that action. Tonight, midway through the state lawmakers current 30 days in Santa Fe, with state government in New Mexico and the throws of financial difficulties, and with a tax increase in the making. What kind of educational reform and funding seems likely to emerge out of this second session of New Mexico's 37th legislature. This, with standing by at the state library in Santa Fe, the co-chairman of the Legislature's Public School Reform Committee, Democratic State Representative Robert Otter-Gone, also a member of the House Appropriations and Finance Committee. Republican State Senator Wendell Cosner, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Dan Weeks, Governor Tony Anayas, legislative liaison. First, however, Sandy Garotano has this background report. Education reform is alive and kicking in both houses of the state legislature in a reform package undergoing committee hearings this

week. Some of the highlights of the reform bill include lowering classroom size on a graduated scale for kindergarten through the sixth grade, and increasing the minimum school day by half an hour. Teachers can no longer be required to perform non-professional duties such as lunchroom or hall duties, which you serve less in preparation time, and schools are required to develop a discipline policy with parental involvement through public hearings. A version of the No Pass No Play Rule requires students to maintain a 2.0 grade point average in order to participate in extracurricular activities. Students would have to pass competency tests in all content areas before advancing to the next higher grade. High school graduation requirements are strengthened, and each school day is required to begin with the pledge of allegiance. We feel that there are a number of excellent provisions in the bill, and that those provisions could stand on their own outside of this deal. And if the deal falls through, we hope that those parts of the package can still survive, things such as the removal of non-instructional duties from the teacher's day, reduction in class size, strengthening discipline standards, strengthening the standards that students

must meet before they can participate in extracurricular activities, and strengthening the curriculum requirements. All of those things are good and could stand on their own outside of the package we feel. While most of these measures are being accepted with little controversy, a major stumbling block has to do with the elimination of teacher tenure, an inclusion that has teachers upset. We're very concerned with the package as it stands now, and that there is absolutely no due process protection for teachers being fired in the packages it is now. The only protections in SB 106 as it stands today are the same protections every citizen has when they're terminated, that's their constitutional rights. We feel that there must be at least a minimal due process through some sort of an arbitration procedure with good and just cause being the standard of proof for termination of a teacher. As the bill stands now, a teacher can appeal his or her firing to an independent arbitrator, but only if the firing violated the teacher's first amendment rights. This protection is already guaranteed under federal law, causing both teachers and some legislators to feel that this provision doesn't go far enough.

I think we're the only state in the United States that eliminated any due process rights for teachers. What we've done, in essence, is we've given more responsibility to teachers, increase the criteria with regard to qualifications, also required at least a half hour per day, but yet we failed to give the teacher any due process rights. We didn't give many salary increases. It's my personal opinion that it was a real step backward, not a step forward. Although the bill thus far carries no appropriations for salary increases for teachers, key legislators claim to be committed to a $2,500 increase across the board. The money is expected to be incorporated into that controversial supplemental appropriations bill called House Bill 2, Jr. There's serious concern with regard to splitting dollars. In other words, we're going to have a House Bill 2 that has a certain amount of dollars for education reform, and on the other side, we've got a separate bill called education reform. Some plays somewhere they're going to have to merge in order to keep the commitment. Where that merges, I don't know.

I don't think a lot of people don't know, and that's the problem. We've got to make a full commitment. We're going to talk about education reform. We've got to go with the money that goes with it, and they should be one complete package as a direct commitment to the people of the state. Otherwise, we're chopping it up and not going truly with an education reform bill. So the battle over educational reform and educational funding continues, and state representative Robert Ottergone, I want to get back in a moment if you don't mind too funding, but something Sandy Garotano just mentioned in her report with the abolition of teacher tenure under this new system. What you have is an other system of arbitration following a teacher's firing, which would limit appeals to what are called constitutional issues. As I understand it, that represents substantially a more narrow basis for appeal than the recommendations which came out of your committee a while back. What's happening here?

How the bill has written, either House Bill 204106, which is being considered in the Ascended at this point, they reflect essentially the concept of the arbitration that we had visualized. One of the key stumbling blocks that we have at this point is A, we've all agreed that we have to eliminate teacher tenure in that it perpetuates mediocrity in the system. The question and the stumbling block, if you want to call it such, is if we dismantle teacher tenure and give the type of broad arbitration that is being discussed at this point, we just recreate tenure except call it something different. What we're trying to do in the House side is broaden the scope of the arbitration provisions, which is called for in present House Bill 204 and 106, broaden the scope somewhat to afford some type of hearing for cause for an aggrieved party, i.e. a teacher. So there isn't any abrogation of any agreement.

What it is is that we're trying to make sure the agreement doesn't go beyond the scope of the agreement and just be consistent with what is understood by the executive as well as the legislative branch. Well let me see if I understand representative out of going. What the Senate put in 106, Senate Bill 106, it's I understand it, it's fundamentally that you can appeal only on constitutional issues. Now what would you have on the House side that appeals process be based upon? In other words, is that enough or do you want more? Something more like what you recommended in your committee's report. I personally, and I think we as a committee and we as a legislature, as well as the executive, would like to broaden the scope of the arbitration process. We would like it to not be as narrow i.e. the First Amendment violations, which is already provided for a 1983 type action, which is the federal action that has been alluded to. I would like to see the scope broaden somewhat so it would include what? May I ask, what would you like in that so as to be more specific? I would

like to have the arbitrary and capricious standard included in the arbitration clause, which essentially means that there is protection against one being fired for reasons other than that standard of arbiter and capricious. That is the area that I would like for us to go in our House Bill 204. That would broaden the scope of the arbitration clause. That would afford essentially what some people call due process and would I think be a nice trade off for the present tenure statute. I know it's hard for you to second guess what the Senate would do by way of reacting to that kind of language in lieu of what they put in there yesterday, but you have any feeling could that pass in the Senate? Well, what we're trying to do, how is we're trying to work with Senator Watts and Senator Euston, as well as key House members to sign off on a set of terms that we can all agree with. The arbitration capricious standard is one that I'm most interested in and that it does afford considerably

more rights under the arbitration clause. All right, the overall funding for this reform package, you've heard in the setup piece, introductory piece tonight, what the critics are saying, reform and funding go hand in hand. What's the rationale for separating out funding from reform measures? The reason we have done that and in the House, we do have a follow-up bill to the reform package. The reason for that is right now we don't have the revenue in hand, i.e. the tax dollars in hand to actually be coupled with the reform package. We anticipate that the reform package may pass as early as next Monday. And if that doesn't fact-cur, we won't have the dollars in hand to actually put in the bill, i.e. we would be funding a deficit-type bill. We don't want to do that. So what we did is we came up with a concept of having two bills, one that will follow the other and we would plug in the money as soon as it becomes available. I don't think there is any discussion

of abrogating or going back on the agreement of $2,500 from the leadership at this point in time. I see the only way of that ever occurring is in fact that the state is in worse financial shape than any of us anticipated at this time. And I think that we have- Well, there are people, of course, saying that aren't there representative autogone. I don't think that there are people who are painting the picture totally black. I think so long as it doesn't turn totally black or the state files bankruptcy or is at that point a bankruptcy that we will abrogate on that agreement of $2,500. But do you think that's very well locked in concrete, $2,500 across the board? Yes sir. All right, so Senator Cosner this afternoon, the Senate Finance Committee on which you serve, temporarily tabled Senate Bill 106, the Reform Bill, almost simultaneously, state superintendent of schools, Alan Morgan, estimated that the total cost of this measure over

the next five years would be something like $367 million. What exactly is happening to the Reform Measure and Senate Finance Committee right now? Why is it temporarily tabled? And do you agree with Alan Morgan's projected estimates of costs over the next five years for this Reform Measure, including teacher salaries? Yes, I think it came out in Senate Finance this morning. Not only did Dr. Morgan present his figures, but we had figures presented by the Legislative Education Study Committee staff. The figures were in very close agreement. If you take the broad view that you just took through the recurring expenses of the teacher's pay, that's a reasonable figure. We were talking capital outlay, this sort of thing. And we knew going in, I think collectively as a body. And it was said repeatedly. Educational reform was going to cost money. So there's no big surprises in it. The question is, where does the money come from?

Right. Well, why did the Senate Finance Committee table temporarily this measure today this afternoon? Well, there were a few issues, how, that we really didn't feel that we had gotten to the bottom line on and some folks were asked to do a little homework. And we'll get back to it. I expect to hear it as early as tomorrow. Another issue that came up, two of our key members of the Senate Finance Committee, one from each side of the aisle, were missing this morning. And one of those senators who served on the Public School Reform Committee had specifically asked that he be allowed to be present at the time Senate Finance voted on the bill. And so that, as a courtesy to that senator, it was accordingly. You heard what Representative Ottergone said about that $2,500 across the board, teacher salary increase. Yet late last week, the chairman of your finance committee, Jack Morgan, Republican from Farmington, was quoted at Lisa saying that given the state's very serious financial problems, he's not certain that that $2,500 figure could be made to stick today.

What's happening here, as you see it right now, and what would you like to see happen here? Well, what we would like to see happen is to have the revenues to just, you know, blithely go ahead with the $2,500 increase for the teachers. I think that's a fairly widely held view by the legislature. The problem, Hal, is that I believe the governor said it in his state of the state speech. We're broke. I've been quoted as saying subsequently, we're broker. And what's happening is depending on who you want to talk to, we are looking at a potential crisis in state management and state finances. We're currently $55 million dollars, poorer than we were when we made that agreement for $25 increase. And that $55 million deficit that we've picked up in the last few days up here is based on $22.40 oil and $2.20 gas. I'm sure you read the paper this morning. We're now talking about $17.96

oil in West Texas. We had a presentation to the Combined Senate Finance Committee, House Corporation Finance and House Tax Committee last week by a very large processor of gas in this state, the largest. And we were told all sorts of terrible things. But one of the points that came out was that there currently isn't a state today. So I was led to believe a dollar in 85 cent gas. Now Hal, we're in a situation where the family is going to try to figure out what we're going to spend starting next one July for one year. And we're being asked to make all these commitments on our expenditures. And yet the one thing we don't know is gee, what's this family going to have as an income? And it's an absolutely critical position that we're in. We have to get a handle on that. And I suspect that you're going to see people saying the $22.40 oil is good. You're going to see people saying 20 is the better price. And I already have heard people saying

no for that period we're talking about. One July coming to one June 87. We ought to be talking about $18 oil. We may be looking at another $100 million shortfall in revenue in addition to the 55. So you wouldn't go to the wall translating this economic analysis with gas and oil prices into revenues. You wouldn't necessarily be prepared to go to bat right now for that $2500 cross-the-board teacher salary increase. I think we have to look at it to be fair to our people. How? We heard on the news last night the Kennecott people are negotiating all of the workers to take an $8 cut down on that part of the state and the copper mines. We can look all around this state and find pockets of real hardship for our workers and our people trying to make a living in a private sector. And when you consider that we had over $700,000 in public school, public education and the current budget out of about 1.3 something we're talking in general terms

50% of the budget. If we have a serious decrease in state revenues it strikes me now that it's only fair that we share this as best we can equally. And I would not be surprised to see some movement to perhaps, and this is not a position that the legislature has taken, but perhaps split that $2500. We have to look at all options. How we're paid very well up here and that's what we get paid for doing to really study these problems and be as fair as we possibly can. You really think you're paid all that well, Wendell Cosner? You heard at the beginning of the program, Senator Cosner, Democratic State Senator Roman May, say, in effect, look, you've got to do education reform, but it's got at the same time to be accompanied by a revenue measure, an appropriations measure, so everybody can understand precisely what is going on here, how one relates to another. Why not do it that way? So this sort of tempest, minor tempest,

reform on the one hand and funding on the other, could be avoided. First answer to the question, how I see a solid commitment out of both sides of the aisle in the Senate to honor that as best we possibly can, as we just discussed, honor that $2500. So I'm not concerned that we've got one bill that has everything in it except the teachers pay, and we're using House Bill 2, Jr., and House Bill 2 as our standard general funding vehicle, that doesn't bother me a bit, and I think, frankly, that we might be making a mountain out of a mole hill of worrying about these two bills not being all locked up together, neat and tidy. In the best of all worlds, Hal, which I would certainly agree with that position, but I would submit to you what's going on in our state today and our financial pictures is a rather far removed from the best of all worlds. All right, thank you, Aristotle. The best of all possible worlds, I believe, is an Aristotelian concept, and so thank you, Aristotle Cosner.

My pleasure, Hal. Dan Weeks, Governor's Legislative Liaison. Governor and I has been concerned for a while about what kind of an appeals and arbitration process would replace the abolition of tenure once abolished. You heard what happened, you know what happened yesterday. What's the administration's feeling about what's going on in this measure? Well, first of all, we were somewhat dismayed when we first saw the final draft of the bill that Legislative Council came up with because we had felt we had agreement from the interim committee, the Reform Committee, at the Education Summit, and in subsequent meetings with some of the leadership of that particular interim committee, as well as with Senator Houston and Representative Samerson. Our position is that we are going to hold to what we felt that agreement was and that was to have a just cause due process type of arbitration procedure with arbitrary and capricious language thrown in there for any kind of dismissal proceedings.

We have worked with the AFT and somewhat with the NEA to try and come up with an amendment to be offered to the to the bill. We've been discussing those provisions that would broaden the scope of the arbitration with the leadership, with Representative Van Gogh, Representative Robbins, and others on the committee. And we're hopeful that we will be able to secure that amendment onto the legislation. Could we go along with something in the sort representative ought to go and just outline as an alternative, the House version of the foundations for arbitration? I think that he could go along with that type of amendment. All right. On the funding and reform right now, you have educational reform, proposal separated from educational funding. Senator Cosner says this is not the best of all possible world. Therefore, what we have to do is deal with it in this fashion. There's also implications in what I heard Senator Cosner

say in a slippage in that $2,500 so-called summit agreement. How does the administration assess what's going on here? Well, first of all, we are in a very tenuous situation with respect to our economy. What we are proposing to do is to try and shift our economic revenue process over into a more personal tax base. What we, let me back up a little bit further, last week we took off about $55 million from our original expenditure recommendation and commensurate with that or concurrent with that, we found out we were going to get $55 million less in revenues. So I think we're basically looking at the same type of tax increase we were looking at before to accommodate the $2,500 plus the other elements. We were looking at around $220 million. We've

been looking at now a range of between $160 and $200. So we're trying to come down off of our mark and we're hopeful that the legislature will recognize the fact that we- I should tell you, your earplugs just slipped down in case they say something to you up there in Santa Fe. You couldn't hear them. Let's talk if you don't mind Dan Weeks about bottom lines. Last night on this program, the chairman of the House Taxation and Revenue Committee James odd said his upper limit for any tax increase at this session is $150 million not a cent more. All right. You have education reform working its way through the legislature. Education funding is mixed up in that controversial house bill to house bill to junior arrangement which process the governor says he doesn't much like. You have slippage perhaps in some alleged agreements reached at the educational summit. What is the governor able and or prepared to do in order to maintain these agreements he

thought he had and to achieve levels of funding he thought he would like to see? Well, as I mentioned before, we are negotiating on a continuing basis with the leadership to try and identify areas in the budget that we could cut back. We have come off a considerable amount already. We've reduced our recommended funding for salary increases for non-teacher employees, public employees from 8 to 12 percent and I think that in so doing he showed some very good faith in bargaining with the leadership and trying to reach some agreements. There are several other elements in addition to the tax package that the coalition has put together which presently is around $70 million that would bring us enough money I think to to fully fund higher education and to give some adequate salary increases to public employees. In addition to fulfilling the $2,500

per teacher obligation that is called for in this in the agreement with the interim committee those items would involve eliminating the food and medical rebate and pumping up the so-called low income tax credit element which is basically a negative income tax for very poor people. If we did that we could raise approximately $60 million for the general fund. In addition to that we have available to us the imposition of additional grocery seats tax. One quarter cent increase in grocery seats brings in $42 million so if you start adding those things to the $70 million tax package that we already have and proposed by the coalition we can begin arriving or reaching those kinds of levels of revenues that we need to adequately take care of our needs. All right when will cost let me ask you first of all what's your reaction to what Dan Weeks just had to tell us? Well I think it shows that everybody is looking at the problem and working

it. I would submit to you how that it is very easy to identify millions of dollars that this state needs teachers pay higher ed as a critical issue. State highway patrol Steve Schiff has a monumental problem as do all DAs. State employees this list goes on and on and on so it's no trouble to crank up the number of dollars that we've got to have. On the other side it's not a bit difficult I served on the tax study committee I agree with what Dan said I can weaken very quickly crank out the taxes the revenues that we need to match that need. I think the question is how how many more straws can this camel's backtake of our people before we put that one more straw in there in a whole thing collapses. We're talking big bucks and there's no problem figuring out what they should be used for or how to raise them it's just how much can this state take we're going to have a tax increase. No question about it. All right uh representative

are going to have exactly 15 seconds. Did you hear slippage yes or no on that $2,500 figure? No all right sir gentlemen you've been a lot of fun thank you all very much we're going to leave it to that tonight that is it for tonight. Tomorrow on location at the Talibaya Center in Santa Fe where ancient southwestern crops and agricultural practices are being revived as a way to feed a hungry world meanwhile thank you for joining us. I'm Hal Rhodes. Good night. you You