Senate Journal: Page 976: Wednesday, April 4, 2001

  What made me think of the '67 session was your struggle with school
  legislation.
  Prior to 1967, state aid to schools was minimal.  The public school system
  was largely
  funded with property tax.  There was a consensus that something had to be
  done, but
  no agreement on how to accomplish this.

  The Republicans in the House passed a school aid proposal called "The
  Petersen
  Plan," and the Senate passed a plan called "Proportionate Sharing."  In
  addition, there
  was not nearly enough revenue to fund either plan, so a tax increase was
  unavoidable
  if the state was going to provide significant aid to the public schools.

  Each house passed its school aid plan, and the whole thing ended up in a
  conference
  committee.  The committee merged the two plans, and although it did not have
  authority to decide on what, if any, taxes were to be increased,
  acknowledged that the
  plan depended on increased revenue.  The committee met with Governor Hughes
  and
  the leadership of both parties in each house.  After some posturing, the
  school aid plan
  was agreed to, as were the taxes to fund the aid.

  The proposal was reported out and passed both houses by a wide margin.  A
  large
  majority of each party in each house supported the legislation, and Iowa had
  its first
  significant aid to schools.  Ironically, the legislation was supported by
  the ISEA and the
  Farm Bureau - a modest miracle in itself, I thought.

  I recall a guest editorial in the Des Moines Register in 1997, when
  California
  economist Arthur Laffer derided a small tax cut and also noted that "good
  policies
  always pass by the skin of their teeth ... nothing truly great is ever so
  clear as to
  command a massive plurality."  This is unadulterated nonsense.  Some of the
  greatest,
  most far-reaching legislation passed by the Iowa Legislature during my time
  passed by
  enormous majorities when the two parties and the legislative and executive
  branches
  came together.

  The point of all this is that I think there is a consensus in Iowa today
  that we have
  to increase teachers' salaries.  It may not be possible to do as much as we
  would like to
  do this session because of the drop in revenue, but still a consensus does
  exist.
  Therefore, given the makeup of state government today, a legislature
  controlled by one
  party, but by a very narrow margin, and an executive branch by the other
  party, the
  only way legislation will be passed is if both parties play a major role in
  the drafting of
  the school legislation and approve the final product.  To try to do
  otherwise is, at best,
  misguided and, at worst, cynical.  I can also tell you that there is more
  cynicism toward
  government today than there has been for a long time.  That cynicism is not
  lessened
  by bickering over what the public considers intricate provisions in the
  proposed
  legislation.  I do not think there is any political advantage to be gained
  unless you can
  pass a reasonable bill to increase teachers' salaries, and you will not pass
  it unless
  there is a consensus among the two parties and the Governor.

  I have seen the statistics showing an upcoming shortage of teachers in this
  state.
  While increased salaries are certainly the most important ingredient in
  attracting
  more young people into the field, it seems to be that other programs should
  be
  considered.

  For example, rural Iowa has many highly intelligent people who are unable to
  travel any distance to attend college or university.  They are essentially
  locked into

© 2001 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa

Comments about this site or page? sjourn@legis.iowa.gov.
Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.

Last update: Fri Jan 18 13:42:47 CST 2002
URL: /DOCS/GA/79GA/Session.1/SJournal/00900/00976.html
jhf