May 1, 2006 Report

Kansas legislators returned to Topeka last Wednesday for the annual wrap-up session. Major issues still on the table include school finance legislation, the final budget plan, major crime legislation and various tax relief measures.
The school finance debate took and interesting turn with the revelation that a member of the Kansas Supreme Court had inappropriate communication with members of the Senate over the pending school finance lawsuit under consideration by the Court. Rules of judicial conduct prohibit judges from conferring separately with parties or non-parties about a pending matter without the knowledge or consent of the parties. The rules also prevent a justice from independently investigating facts in a case, as he is bound to consider only the evidence presented in open court.
The Chief Justice has referred the matter to the Judicial Qualifications Commission and the legislature will be forming an investigative committee to review the matter from the legislative branch side following the conclusion of the legislative session. What we know at this point is that a justice met with at least two Senators to discuss pending school finance proposals and plans that may or may not meet court approval were discussed.
In the wake of the disclosure the Senate has passed a school finance plan after failing on 3 previous attempts. The Senate plan would phase in about $466M in new funding over 3 years. The Senate plan, however, contains no education policy to go along with the spending. Senators explained that they hadn’t had enough time to consider and add the policy pieces and are looking to the House to do that. Saturday, the House Select Committee on School Finance, which I vice-chair, spent over 6 hours putting together another House school finance plan and succeeded in constructing a plan that would provide a little over $400M in new funding over the next 3 years. Importantly, the House committee added significant policy pieces to the plan in an effort to ensure the additional funds would be utilized to maximize results. An accountability piece in the plan provides that if a district fails to meet state board requirements the district must reallocate sufficient funds within its budget to address the deficiencies. Also included in the bill is a provision that ensures that the legislature will not be bound by unfounded mandates of the federal government or the State Board of Education. The legislature is concerned that the Supreme Court is ordering the legislature to fund initiatives the legislature has not approved, resulting in unfounded mandates and a breach of the separation of powers doctrine.
The House plan also would require that the State Board design a plan of administrative reorganization. The Court has repeatedly referenced their concern over the high cost of school administration and the House feels that this area must be addressed. The House plan also would require that districts report specific information on the results of spending the new funds for bilingual education, at-risk programs and vocational education programs by numbers of students served, types of services provided the research upon which the district relied and the results. Reporting of results and other financial information would be in a uniform- user friendly format that taxpayers would be able to interpret. Both the House and Senate versions contain provisions to prevent the Court from cherry-picking the law by accepting some provisions and rejecting others. The House bill provides that in order for the 2nd and 3rd years of the plan to be implemented the court will have to release the case. The House will debate the House plan this week.