School Aid Pact Breaks Assembly Budget Stalemate

Democratic and Republican negotiators in the Assembly reached agreement Tuesday on a $1.5-billion school aid package designed to help suburban and rural districts and end a stalemate that had halted work on a proposed state budget.

The full Assembly responded hours later by passing its $49.5-billion version of the budget. The vote was 54-13, the exact two-thirds majority required. The Senate will vote today, moving the budget debate into a two-house conference committee, which then will write a final legislative version to send to Gov. George Deukmejian.

Assembly negotiations centered on legislation to implement Proposition 98, an initiative approved by voters in November. The settlement--which still must be endorsed by the Senate--called for setting aside $441 million of a potential $2.5-billion budget surplus to finance special financial aid programs that Republicans contend have been shortchanged by Democrats in recent years.

Under the compromise, one new program would be added to more than 50 special categorical school aid programs that already exist. It would create a new $200-million-a-year special financial aid program for districts--mainly suburban and rural--that traditionally have been left out when urban Democrats divide up the school funding pie.

For example, the Glendale Unified School District would receive $2.3 million under the special new program while Los Angeles Unified--with roughly 26 times the enrollment--would get nothing.

The agreement also called for so-called “have-not” school districts to receive another $141 million to balance state expenditures distributed for special categorical programs.

For their part, Assembly Republicans agreed in principle to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would repeal key provisions of the voter-approved limit on government spending that has kept a tight lid on state appropriations in recent years.

Assemblyman Pat Nolan (R-Glendale), the lead Republican negotiator, argued in the floor debate that the compromise was “historic” because it represented an effort to finance school districts equally throughout the state.

Some Los Angeles Democrats objected, claiming that legislators from the rest of the state were ganging up on the city’s schools. “I think Los Angeles city schools are getting raped,” declared Assemblyman Tom Bane (D-Tarzana).

But a Central Valley Democrat, Assemblyman Patrick Johnston of Stockton, speaking for many of his rural colleagues, told reporters: “Los Angeles has ‘pigged out’ so much over the years that this proposal only just begins to even things up.” And Democratic Assemblyman Sam Farr of Carmel complained about Los Angeles lobbyists. “They are like a small army,” he said. “It’s an incredible political force.”

The weeklong battle over school funding virtually guaranteed that the Legislature again would miss the June 15 deadline in the California Constitution for passage of the budget. This would be the third straight year the Legislature has missed its due-date for the budget. The deadline has often been criticized as toothless because legislators face no penalties for being late.

Republicans began the deadlock last week by refusing to vote on the Assembly floor for a Ways and Means Committee draft of a $49.5-billion budget until Democrats agreed to steer more school aid to GOP-represented rural and suburban school districts.

At stake was a share of the windfall in tax revenue that developed last month when Deukmejian updated his estimates of receipts and expenditures for the current and upcoming fiscal years. Deukmejian said that largely because of higher-than-expected income tax receipts, the state will have $1.1 billion more to spend this fiscal year and $1.4 billion more in the next budget year, which begins July 1.

The proposed compromise worked out by Assembly negotiators would earmark $557 million for public schools and community colleges in the current year and $952 million next year.

In the current budget year, $136 million would be set aside to meet unanticipated general education expenses, $50 million would go to community colleges, $50 million for instruction materials, $70 million would be earmarked for school maintenance and $251 million would be disbursed evenly among districts on a per-pupil basis.

In the fiscal year that begins July 1, school districts would receive the $441 million for special categorical programs, $270 million to finance a 4.6% across-the-board increase, with the remainder being allocated to community colleges and other education programs.

Copies of the plan were being circulated among Senate lawmakers. “We have to get the Senate to agree to this, too,” Nolan said.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig said he agrees generally with the overall structure of the financial plan, but differed on some key details.

The biggest point of disagreement appears to be the proposal to spend $200 million on the special categorical program for “have-not” school districts. Honig noted that the money to finance the plan would come from funds he would like to see used to reduce classroom overcrowding and various school improvement programs.

Honig said he would prefer that the districts receive $50 million each year for four years, up to a total of $200 million. That would free up $150 million during the upcoming budget year for class-size reduction and school improvement programs.

Nevertheless, Honig said the general framework for the compromise was sound and added that he believes the differences are not insurmountable.