Proposed House Rules Change Could Affect Ed Funding
posted 2/13/2012


House Rules Chairman Mark Formby is proposing a change to the way that the Legislature debates appropriations bills.  The proposed change has serious implications for K12 funding.
The proposed change would require that any legislator who, during floor debate, offers an amendment to increase an appropriation to an agency (such as education) include in the amendment an equal reduction to another state agency or program. Certainly, it is reasonable to ask that legislators be serious participants in the budgeting process and that they do the difficult work of balancing the budget. Here's the problem...

Typically, legislators are not given sufficient budget information timely enough to comply with the suggested change. In order for legislators to comply in a responsible way, they should be given, well ahead of debate, complete budget information, including:

  • the proposed appropriation for each agency, by line item
  • the percent change from the prior year for each line item (so that legislators can determine which line items have been increased, which have been cut, and by how much)
  • the amount by which the proposed appropriation is in violation of state law (MAEP, NBCT, Chickasaw Cession, etc.)
  • the balances of all contingency and reserve funds and the extent to which those are used in the proposed budget

Equally critical is that the rules change would mean that the reserve and contingency funds (such as the "Rainy Day Fund") would be off the table - untouchable - during the appropriations debate. Though the chambers typically agree on the amount of reserves that will be used in the budget ahead of time, the amount of revenue that is available to appropriate is often in flux up until the last minute of the budget debate. Every year, the numbers change, often significantly. 

It appears that use of reserve funds could be debated in committee, but this is problematic in that two-thirds of us have no representation on the House Appropriations Committee. That committee is made up of 33 representatives (of 122).  Half of the Senate serves on its Appropriations Committee. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is no accountability for a committee vote. Committee votes are typically voice votes and are not recorded.

Changing the rules that govern the way we are represented is very serious, particularly when the proposed change limits the ways in which the legislators we elect can represent our concerns and priorities. 

Legislators should be serious and responsible about proposed increases in state spending, and, consistent with that, any change in the way our Legislature debates budget bills should also require that legislators be equipped with the information they need. Further, no legislator should be excluded from the debate about how any of our tax dollars, including those placed in reserve funds, are spent at any point in the process.


 
 
TPC continues to grow...
now over 60,000 strong!
    
          
 
Sign up to receive our email updates by clicking on the button below.



 
 

 
To learn which legislators represent you, visit VoteSmart.org.


 
 
 
 
FOLLOW US ON
 
                                                    

 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Click here for an explanation
of the 2006 MAEP vote.