John Malone: Levy votes don't occur in a climate of fair debate

Lynn Reed's arguments in his recent commentary ("Putting school financing to a vote isn't so bad," Oct. 28) sound reasonable at first, until you look at the pesky details and the reality that school officials face.

If we are going to engage in an informed discussion about this issue, we need to make sure people have all the information.

For example, Reed notes that on a statewide basis, revenue derived from operating levies put to a referendum accounts for just 6 percent of total revenue. The unfortunate missing detail is the fact that most metro school districts rely on voter-approved levies for at least twice that amount and that several suburban school districts actually get more than 20 percent of their revenue from them. That's right: Some school districts actually live with the reality that 20 percent of their revenue could disappear overnight if they have the misfortune of running a referendum in the "wrong year."

No other level of government is forced to play this game of budgetary Russian roulette. The state doesn't ask Minnesotans to vote every few years on whether to reduce nursing home funding by 20 percent. Cities and counties do not ask voters if it makes sense to reduce the number of police officers or firefighters or to reduce county funding for parks and recreation. When the governor and legislators determined that it was in the state's best interest to build a new baseball stadium, they moved forward without a referendum.

Yet when it comes to funding public education, we require districts to hold a referendum every few years to determine whether they will be able to offer their students the educational programs they need to prepare to compete in today's global economy.

I agree that it is good to engage the public in decisions made by government. Voters have every right to know how new funds will be used to enhance student achievement and how the district will be accountable for delivering results. School board members and administrators welcome this discussion and are more than willing to make their cases to voters. However, the polarizing nature of politics has changed the tone and tenor of any conversation related to what should happen in our schools.

Too often, school referendums end up being about everything but education issues. A voter might be mad about the increase in the city levy, so he votes no in the school referendum. Another voter is mad that the school board voted to close his neighborhood school 10 years ago, so he votes against the levy. Consultants from outside the state with no ties to the local community have been hired for the sole purpose of defeating school levies. How can we hope to have a thoughtful dialogue in that type of climate?

Reed also ignored the fact that the revenue a school district acquires in a local operating referendum is used to fund basic programs. The only say local citizens have is whether they will rescue their district from plummeting into a financial free fall in the absence of adequate state funding.

It is clear that the time has come to reform the way we fund our schools. Minnesotans need to demand that the governor and legislators work together to modernize the system.

Meanwhile, I hope voters will refrain from taking their frustrations out on local school districts and instead base their decisions on an informed examination of the facts. While referendums are not the ultimate answer to adequate, sustainable and equitable school funding, they are currently the only available tool to ensure that our schools are adequately funded.

John Malone is the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan School Districts board of directors and the vice chairman of the Orono Board of Education.