Archive
The 10 Most Important Slides from the State Auditor and Inspector’s Epic Presentation
Yesterday, State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd’s gave a virtual presentation over her office’s findings in the investigation of Epic Charter Schools. The 45 minute video is now all over the World Wide Web Web and continues to be shared. It should also be required viewing for all educators parents, and … well, taxpayers. And probably legislators.
As important as the presentation is, I know that the tl;dr phenomenon applies to video content as well. I taught high school English long enough to understand that just because I assign it, doesn’t mean you’ll read all of it. That being said, let me cut it up into bite-size pieces for you.
I have taken screenshots of what I think are the ten most important slides from Auditor Byrd’s presentation. I’ll do my best to summarize them, but honestly, watching the whole thing (with captioning), is really worth it. After watching it in the morning, I even kept it on loop again yesterday afternoon while working in my office.
1. Governor Stitt initiated the audit process, writing to Auditor Byrd, “I respectfully request an audit of Epic Charter School and all related entities.” This isn’t the first slide in the presentation, but I’m doing the first two in reverse order. Too many times, I’ve seen the state’s leading far-right think tank accuse Epic’s detractors of being anti-choice.
Hardly.
This audit, which began six months into Stitt’s term, is about assuring that tax dollars go where they’re supposed to.
The other notable part here is that Stitt addresses not only Epic, but also all related entities. As Byrd demonstrates clearly, there is very little – if any – space between these entities.
2. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation was already investigating Epic before the governor wrote to Auditor Byrd. The search warrant below was issued three days before the governor sent that letter. I’m not a lawyer, but embezzlement and racketeering both sound pretty serious.
3. Epic Youth Services received a PPP loan for $42,700. On first glance, it’s a fairly small amount. But Epic Youth Services reported to the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission that they had zero employees from 2010 through 2018. Then in 2019 they hired two lobbyists. Epic Youth Services, which takes 10% of all of Epic’s state aid, now apparently has three employees and needs federal Covid relief funds to keep them on the job – whatever job that is. Auditor Byrd doesn’t seem to think that the operating agreement makes that clear.
4. Epic One-on-One (full-virtual) and Epic Blended submit identical invoices every month. That’s right. The percentages you see below are identical for the all-online school and for the brick-and-mortar school. I’m also not sure what child nutrition services are needed for Epic One-on-One, and why EYS bills them for it every month. One more thing…if they have three employees, none of which are certified teachers, what are the certified salaries?
If Epic has their way, we’ll never know. They claim that all the funds that go to EYS are private once the check clears. I get the premise. That’s like saying when my district’s milk check to the dairy clears, it’s not state money anymore. On the other hand, we still haven’t clearly established why Epic is buying milk for virtual students. In any case, the identical monthly invoices are fishy.
5. Epic claims the state can’t audit $125 million in funds that were allocated from 2015-20. On top of the 10% management fee that goes to EYS, Epic withholds $1000 per student for their “learning fund.” They have provided examples of use and ranges of expenses, but they have not brought receipts. As Byrd says in the presentation, “During the course of the audit more than $125 million of student educational funds were transferred to a company with no transparency and no accountability.”
Again, how is anyone ok with this? If you believe in school choice, don’t you worry that this hurts your cause? If you believe in fiscal responsibility, why aren’t you outraged? Every other school district has to keep a paper trail of every dollar we spend.
6. Byrd’s office has to deal with five separate law firms that Epic employs. This explain why the State Auditor and Inspector’s office has had to issue more than 50 subpoenas to date. Byrd says that responses have been late and incomplete. The next part of the investigation can’t move forward until a judge rules whether or not the learning funds are public funds and therefore subject to audit.
Five law firms. Just wow.
7. For the current school year, about $90 million more of state funding is hidden from view. We all knew that Epic (and other statewide virtual schools that apparently don’t self-deal with their own parallel companies like something out of Ozark) was going to gain students during the pandemic. That only increases the onus for transparency. Apparently, it also cranked up the necessity on the part of Epic to avoid it.
8. The scope of the audit is actually narrow. Byrd isn’t saying that charter schools, virtual instruction, or school choice more broadly are bad concepts. Again, it’s important to remember that our most school choice forward governor ever requested this audit.
I know good teachers who work for Epic. This isn’t a knock on the work they do or an attack on their character. This audit report questions the legality and ethics of the actions of Epic’s leaders.
For the record, I’m not against charter schools, virtual instruction, or school choice, other than vouchers for private schools. Discussions of school choice aren’t binary. And we shouldn’t paint charter schools with a singular brush.
9 & 10. Senate Bill 895 is sketchy. Shortly after Byrd’s office released their findings, Senator Paul Rosino (R – OKC) filed a bill that would strip her office of the authority to perform this kind of audit. Imagine an agency under investigation being able to choose their own investigators. Worse yet, this bill is based on suggestions of Epic’s co-founders.
Byrd’s office released her findings on October 1. As the Tulsa World points out, Rosino’s campaign received donations from Epic people on the 2nd. Then he filed this bill. Yeah, it probably means nothing.
Again, I can’t urge you strongly enough to play the video. Just keep it on in the background while you’re cooking dinner or answering email. Break it up into chunks. Turn it into a Reader’s Theater for your drama class.
Well, maybe don’t do the last one.
This is a very big deal, and we can’t quit asking for accountability. SB 895 has already passed the Senate and is now waiting to be heard in committee in the House. We can’t be complacent about this.
Contact your representative. Tell a friend to do the same.
On Numerators and Denominators and the Reckless Redistribution of School Funding
Last week, during debate over HB 2078, Sen. Greg Treat (R – OKC) waxed nostalgic over his younger days when he was a mathlete in school. In discussing the way he feels school funding should be distributed, he made sure we all understood numerators and denominators.
I felt like I was watching a scene from Real Genius, which I probably did later in the week. I mean, the movie holds up so well all these years later.
Not many people know this, but I too was a mathlete back in the day. In today’s political climate, I think my teachers probably would have been forced by law to reveal that information to my parents if they suspected it. Sure, I had a C in Algebra, but I did have all those MathCounts trophies.
I’m digressing, but in my defense, it’s early, and I didn’t think I was going to be writing this morning, but a major piece of legislation dropped last night. The bill, a committee substitute for HB 2755, is scheduled to be heard this morning in the Senate Appropriations Committee. It is on the agenda for 10:00.
In simple terms, the bill has two impacts:
- Beginning July 1, money from building funds and all local- and state-dedicated revenue except bond issues would be shifted from traditional school districts to charter schools based on the number of students who live in their district but attend a charter.
- Virtual charter schools would receive only state aid and state-appropriated dollars.
On the surface, that seems pretty harmless, but since I’m a (former) mathlete, I’m still thinking about those darn numerators and denominators. Or maybe, since I’m a superintendent, I’m thinking about the fact that our local revenue only goes so far and that dividing it further (by adding more to the numerator), has a deleterious effect on **checks notes** oh yeah, every other school district in the state.
Maybe you’re somewhere far away from Oklahoma City or Tulsa, and you’re thinking that this bill really won’t impact your local school district. After all, you are several counties removed from any physical charter school. And they seem to have carved out an exception for virtual schools. Keep in mind, though, that statewide blended charter schools draw students from all 77 counties. Besides, anything that draws down from the funding formula impacts all districts.
Yes, my friend, you’re in this too.
This bill, in a sense, codifies the surprise settlement that the State Board of Education – against advice of their legal counsel – made a few weeks ago. Ostensibly, the problem this solution is solving is the disparity between per pupil funding for traditional public schools and for charter schools. Rather than being additive, it is divisive.
They’re taking the same dollars and spreading them around further. Not very mathletic of them, is it? Among reasons I oppose this bill:
- Local property tax as a funding source exclusive to the local school district is a fundamental piece of Oklahoma school finance enshrined in the Oklahoma Constitution.
- Public school districts do not have excess building funds they can afford to lose, and any shifting of dollars will hurt students.
- Charter schools do not have locally elected boards that taxpayers can hold accountable for spending decisions.
- There are better mechanisms to fund capital needs of charter schools *and* public school districts that receive little ad valorem revenue. Oklahoma is one of only four states that doesn’t provide state funding for school capital improvements.
- Shifting limited funding from one underfunded school district to another isn’t a solution.
If this disparity suddenly concerns our legislature, there is a better way to fix it. Instead of dividing already scarce resources, they could find a way to add to charter schools without taking away from the rest of us.
By the way, this is a central part of the governor’s re-election campaign plan. If you don’t believe me, see below:
The state board decision, the bills that passed last week, and even the legislative efforts to kneecap the State Auditor and Inspector’s investigation of Epic, are all part of a coordinated plan to run the Jeb Bush, Betsy DeVos, and OCPA agenda of dismantling public education. Sadly, many of the well-meaning legislators who we elected because of their professed support for public schools are taking the bait and following along.
Be heard and be seen fighting for our students. There’s a way to fix the funding disparity without lowering the bar.
Below are the senators on the Appropriations Committee. Please reach out to them and ask for a no vote on HB 2755.
It Really Does Matter
Sometimes when I follow the happenings of the Oklahoma Legislature, I just shake my head and repeat the mantra I learned from that 1979 Bill Murray classic, Meatballs.
So far, the First Session of the 58th Oklahoma Legislature is shaping up to be as bad – if not worse – than the First Session of the 53rd. Let’s review.
The 2010 election brought us Gov. Fallin and State Superintendent She Who Shall not be Named. It also led to the 2011 legislative session that gave us:
- Third grade retention law (since significantly improved)
- A-F report cards for schools (modified several times since, marginally improved)
- Private school vouchers (since increased)
- Teacher evaluations tied to test scores (removed from law before ever happening)
This is merely a sample of educational reforms passed (without additional funding, I might add) ten years ago. At the time, it was a low-water mark for public schools. Gradually, though, some of the bad policies improved, or went away entirely. That change happened because we as public school advocates fought for it.
One notable example of this was in 2015. That year, the Oklahoma Legislature passed HB 2625, which created a committee including parents in the decision-making process regarding the retention or promotion of third graders. In short, parents and educators were united to make sure that a single test score didn’t result in holding students back. Governor Fallin vetoed the bill, and the Legislature quickly and soundly overrode her veto (by a combined vote of 124-19). There wasn’t even floor discussion. They just walked in, voted, and left. It was glorious.
As I watch this year’s Legislature, I find myself feeling low again. Certainly the toll of 13 months of pandemic life and school leadership contributes to that. Just the same, it seems like public schools are under constant attack, maybe to the worst degree since that session ten years ago. This is perfectly illustrated by the happenings of last Wednesday, when Governor Stitt signed two bills with better talking points than impacts. This is from the governor’s press release:
House Bill 2078 and Senate Bill 783 allow for students to attend public schools that best meet their needs and modernize the funding formula to match enrollment counts more accurately.
“This is a monumental day for education reform in Oklahoma,” said Gov. Stitt. “Education is not one-size-fits-all, and these bills allow parents and students to have the freedom to attend the best public school for them regardless of their ZIP code. Additionally, modernizing the funding formula ensures funding follows the student, not the school. These reforms are vital to getting Oklahoma to be a Top Ten state in education and I am proud of this Republican legislature for its dedication to putting students first.”
“Today is a historic day for education in Oklahoma,” said Secretary of Education Ryan Walters. “We have transformed funding for every single student in the state and empowered them to choose a school that best fits their needs. These two bills will work seamlessly together to have an immediate impact on the way we educate Oklahoma’s students and I commend our state leaders for getting this across the finish line.”
HB 2078, authored by Rep. Kyle Hilbert (R-Depew) and Sen. Zack Taylor (R-Seminole), modernizes the education funding formula by basing per-pupil funding on the most recent enrollment data. The previous system gave school districts multiple enrollment figures from which to base their funding, causing some districts to receive state funds for students who are no longer enrolled.
SB 783, authored by Sen. Adam Pugh (R-Edmond), Sen. Kim David (R-Porter) and Rep. Brad Boles (R-Marlow), amends the Education Open Transfer Act to allow students the ability to transfer to another school district at any time, provided the district has space available.
Let’s be honest. We knew he was going to say Top Ten State at some point. It’s similar to how you have that one relative who ends every text with lol. You’ve seen it so much it’s lost all meaning.
The truth about HB 2078 is that it creates more volatility in the funding formula. It makes planning harder for districts. It also doesn’t make the funding follow the student that much, since districts will need to be more conservative with their fund balances to prepare for the unexpected.
Meanwhile, SB 783 would better be described as an open transfer bill for families with the means to drive their children from one school district to another every single day. Since many of the growing districts in Oklahoma are already at capacity, they probably won’t be accepting many transfers anyway. As a superintendent, I’m happy to provide an education for whoever shows up. I want our schools full, and I stand by the work our teachers do to teach ALL kids, regardless of zip code. I just don’t think the bill is the egalitarian fix all that our state leaders are advertising it to be.
Where is this going, now that I’m already 750 words deep into writing? After all, every educator membership group in the state opposed these bills. They passed anyway, and the governor gleefully signed them into law. Perhaps Bill Murray was right. Maybe it just doesn’t matter what we say or what we do. For whatever reason (or maybe a collection of reasons), there are more bills targeted at punishing teachers, administrators, and school board members than I’ve seen in years.
My frustration was so high that I even wrote a post over Spring Break – my first topical blog post in over two years. The last straw for me was SB 639, which directly relates to students receiving the Oklahoma’s Promise scholarship. It’s to be expected that our elected officials will from time to time attack the adults teaching kids as well as school district leaders. I wish it weren’t trend behavior, but as the son of a teacher, and a 28 year educator myself, I’ve seen it enough to expect it. This bill, however, was an attack on the most vulnerable students we serve.
Friday, we received a glimmer of hope. After listening to our membership organizations, along with significant urging from higher education leaders, SB 639 has been revised in committee. They’ve removed the paragraph adding the payback provision. With that change, it’s actually a good bill. And it’s a reminder that we have to continue reaching out to our elected officials. We may not get them to listen every time, but they definitely won’t hear us if we aren’t talking to them.
This year’s Legislature will probably continue meeting for seven or eight more weeks. There are several live bills (both good and bad for public schools) in each legislative chamber. There are last-minute committee substitutes to be made. And as has been the case in years past, we know very little about the behind-closed-door budget discussions between the governor’s staff and the few legislators who get to be in the room where it happens.
Here are a few highlights (all in the House) of what we expect this week:
- The House Banking, et.al. Committee will hear SB 267 on Monday. This bill would allow any retired educator to return to the classroom after being out for a year. This is a good measure that would help districts staff their classrooms when all the transfer students show up next year.
- The House Rules Committee will hear SB 634 on Tuesday. This would require new paperwork each year for individuals to have membership dues deducted from paychecks. I don’t see it having much impact on how many teachers, support employees, or administrators join their professional organizations, but it will create a massive paperwork burden. One extremist think tank calls it a measure to protect free speech. That’s nonsense. Each of these employees already have the choice to join or not join. And many who quit do so mid-year. The only real impact will be a significant increase in paperwork. That’s not where I want my payroll department’s attention focused over the summer and at the beginning of the school year.
- The same committee will also hear SB 962 on Tuesday. This bill would move school board elections to November. Currently, primaries are held in February and elections are held in April (two days from now, in fact). The stated purpose of the bill is to create more engagement in school board elections. The result, regardless of the intent, will be to insert a greater level of partisanship into the process. I personally like that school and municipal elections usually lack that kind of divisiveness and have their separate calendars. Sure, they aren’t always kind, respectful processes, but adding party politics won’t make them any more civil. Here’s a list of committee members, in case you want to reach out to them.
- A bill that deserves its own separate blog post, SB 895, will likely be heard by the House Appropriations and Budget (A&B) Committee this week, though as I’m writing this, it does not appear on any posted committee agenda. This bill would – and I swear this isn’t one of those times I’m trying to be funny – allow state agencies under investigation to bypass the duly elected State Auditor and Inspector and SELECT THEIR OWN AUDITOR. Gee, what could go wrong. Maybe the better question is who would want something like this to happen? For more on that, I encourage you to read this March 11 Tulsa World article that connects the dots. Here’s a blurb:
An Epic Charter Schools co-founder’s recommendations for how State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd’s office operates found their way into a bill that passed the Senate floor on Tuesday evening.
On Oct. 1, Byrd’s office issued an audit highly critical of Epic’s handling of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, but Epic has denied criminal wrongdoing and branded the state’s investigative audit report as an attack on school choice.
The next day, on Oct. 2, Epic co-founder Ben Harris and his wife Elizabeth VanAcker each gave maximum campaign donations of $2,800 allowed per election cycle to state Sen. Paul Rosino, R-Oklahoma City, according to public records from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.
On Jan. 21, Rosino introduced Senate Bill 895, which he authored. It passed off the Senate floor late Tuesday by a vote of 36-9 and next heads to the House for consideration.
Seriously, I encourage you to read the entire article. And the text of the bill. And then reach out to your House member, as well as those on the A&B Committee.
The stakes are too high for those of us who care about public education to remain silent. This year of all years – after all we’ve been through during the last 13 months – what we say and do does in fact matter. We may not get all the wins, but we need to be seen fighting for our students and our schools.
Oklahoma’s Promise (Fingers Crossed)
Oklahoma’s Promise (Fingers Crossed)
In the summer of 2004, on my first day of work for the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, I completed my HR paperwork and walked to my cubicle where I found a stack of paper about one foot tall on my desk. They were high school transcripts and OHLAP verification forms. As a high school principal just a few weeks before, I had been responsible for reviewing transcripts for OHLAP, signing them, and sending them off somewhere. Now I was somewhere, reviewing those transcripts through a different lens.
Here is the description of the program (which has since been renamed Oklahoma’s Promise) from the State Regents’ website:
Oklahoma’s Promise allows eighth-, ninth- or 10th-grade students from families with an income of $55,000 or less to earn a college tuition scholarship. Students must also meet academic and conduct requirements in high school.
Created in 1992 by the Legislature to help more Oklahoma families send their children to college, Oklahoma’s Promise was originally designated as the Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program. The program is administered by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
Oklahoma’s Promise has been an incredibly successful program. The State Regents publish a statistical report every year that provides a wealth of information about enrollment, completion, and so much more. For the 2019-20 school year, 75% of high school students who signed up for the program, completed the academic requirements for it. Compare that to the graduating class of 1996, in which only 39.6% of students who signed up completed it. Oklahoma’s Promise, if nothing else, encourages students from low-income families to complete high school having completed more college-bound courses. That alone makes it a public program with longitudinal data to prove its efficacy.
Now, for some reason, the Oklahoma Legislature wants to change it. Senate Bill 639, authored by Adam Pugh (R – Edmond), makes two significant changes to Oklahoma’s Promise. I like one, and I hate the other so much that I have flames coming out of my head.
The good change would be an expansion of Oklahoma’s Promise to include training for programs identified by the Department of Commerce as “critical occupation areas.” It makes sense. Not every high school graduate wants to go to college, nor do they need to. If we can help people gain qualifications to begin a career, we should. Again, it’s good public policy. Once we have 25 years of data on this change (as we do with Oklahoma’s Promise), I bet the investment will prove worthwhile.
The bad change – and the word bad is really not strong enough here – is a clawback provision that would require students who don’t complete their program to pay the state back. I’m curious here…when we provide tax credits to companies that in turn lay off employees, do we ask them to repay the state? Nevermind. I’m going off on a tangent.
When questioned on the floor of the Senate about this provision, Pugh offered the following defense:
“We have got to stop with the bigotry of low expectations in this building.”
Ahh, the bigotry of low expectations. It was a garbage line in 2000 when W was pitching his vision for public education, and it’s a garbage line now. It’s also completely contradicted by fact.
I still know some of the people who work in the Oklahoma’s Promise office at the State Regents. They have a passion for the program and dedication to the students who benefit from it. They also have receipts. Here are a few more data points from their annual report.
For one thing, Oklahoma’s Promise students have higher high school GPAs than students who aren’t enrolled in the program. This is likely due to the well-understood importance of having students set goals and regularly discuss them with the adults in their lives. It also speaks to the importance of school counselors and strong guidance programs.
They have higher ACT scores.
They have higher college-going rates…
…and lower college remediation rates.
Oklahoma’s Promise students have higher college GPAs…
… as well as better persistence rates into their sophomore year…
… and degree completion…
… and postgraduate employment.
Let’s be clear. Nobody has low expectations for the Oklahoma’s Promise financial aid recipients. They’re Oklahoma’s most reliable college students. It seems to me that they keep their promises better than the Oklahoma Legislature does.
College is hard for many people, and for many reasons. An endless number of scenarios can complicate the time span between a student’s matriculation and anticipated graduation. Many of these are out of their control. We need to remember that as Oklahoma taxpayers, we subsidize the education of all students at our public institutions of higher education. Senate Bill 639 would only punish the poor ones who don’t finish.
If you believe that people with means (read: privilege) are the only ones who should have the opportunity to advance themselves, maybe you support this bill. On the other hand, if you believe that the investment Oklahomans have made for a quarter century in the education of students who might otherwise miss out is worth it in spite of the ones who don’t reach the finish line, you should fight this bill with every fiber of your being. We can’t tell people to try, but we’ll punish you if you fail.
Please contact whoever represents you in the House and ask them to vote against SB 639. Or at least ask them to fix it. Leave the good part in. Take the bad part out.
9 days to go: vote #oklaed
Yesterday, on a beautiful October afternoon (during which both OU and OSU had homecoming parades), a group of public education advocates gathered at the Capitol to remember why we walked out in April and to focus on the education vote in the upcoming election.
I would agree with Oklahoma Watch’s assessment. Yes, it was a small crowd, but it was pretty vocal. Many of the speakers were dynamic. I was also there.
The Oklahoman had this to say about the rally:
Many teachers hope the election will result in more lawmakers who are willing to increase the state’s education budget.
“I’m here today because education is so important,” Kim Schooler, a fourth-grade teacher at Truman Elementary in Norman, said. “It is the key to everything. That’s why I’m a teacher.”
Amanda Jeffers, a candidate for House District 91 who teaches English at Crooked Oak High School in Oklahoma City, told the crowd she walked out in April because “giving teachers a moderate pay increase doesn’t fix the problems we face in the classroom.”
I was one of the speakers yesterday as well, and a couple of people have asked me to post my comments. Here’s what I had written in advance, though I probably ad libbed a bit:
So…what does that ideal, pro-education candidate, in the most generic sense possible look like? Since I can’t endorse anyone specifically today, let me paint you a picture.
A candidate who supports public education understands that health care, corrections, and addiction issues ARE public education issues.
A candidate who supports public education knows that you can’t increase teacher pay by giving us more flexibility with how we spend our building fund. Whether it’s a quarter or five nickels, it’s still 25 cents.
A candidate who supports public education reads, engages, and votes. And walks around the Capitol with teachers when they’re fighting for our profession.
By the way, a candidate who supports public education knows that the teacher walkout was about WAY more than teacher pay.
A candidate who supports public education is involved with – and ideally, leading the way – helping us all understand how adverse childhood experiences shape the gap between what is taught and what is learned.
A candidate who supports public education is someone who has been paying attention to the policy and funding issues that have been hurting our schools…for more than just the last few minutes.
A candidate who supports public education knows that public schools already have academic accountability and fiscal transparency, as required by more laws than I can count.
A candidate who supports public education also knows that vouchers would take public school dollars and send them to private schools that lack accountability and transparency.
Finally, a candidate who supports public education is someone who is more concerned with doing right by school children than with his or her political future.
So far, friends, 2018 has been a landmark year. Many of the legislators who have tried to cut this state into prosperity have changed their tune. Others decided they didn’t want to stick around. Some, well, some we have just fired. Keep voting for better candidates. Keep voting for public education. Keep voting for the future.
With that said, do you know who your candidates are? Do you know where your polling place is? Do you have a plan to take the time to vote on November 6th? Our state has come too far for any of us to stay on the sidelines and let other people make decisions.
Remember the Names
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
-William Butler Yeats
This week while working, many Oklahomans found distraction watching a reckless, dangerous ordeal. It was a long and twisting journey, full of surprises. You could even call it the epitome of self-sabotage. Eventually, though it had a very predictable outcome: the Legislature once again failed to meet the needs of Oklahomans.
Oh, did you think I was talking about yesterday’s high speed chase in the OKC metro? I missed that. Too many meetings.
That was one guy making a series of bad decisions that ended with him being tazed and captured. Everyone watching knew that would happen. They just didn’t know what would happen first.
The story of this mess of a state started long ago. I could begin with 1992’s State Question 640, which severely limited the ability of the Legislature in a budget crisis such as this. Or maybe with Governor Fallin’s election in 2010. Or her re-election in 2014. For the sake of time, though, I’ll begin with the budget passed by the Legislature and approved in May.
A key piece of filling this year’s budget including passing a cigarette tax fee. Well, the Legislature called it a fee, but it was pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that it was a tax.
Predictably, on August 10th, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled as such. As the Oklahoman wrote at that time:
In an opinion that drew support from every justice, the court noted that the Legislature introduced four bills this year that would have created a similar cigarette “tax,” but the bills were abandoned because of little support. In the final week of session, lawmakers finally adopted the “smoking cessation fee.”
It was unanimous.
This created a huge budget hole and the need for a special session*. For weeks, we’ve seen half-measures and insults called compromises. Finally this week, the dam broke and something appeared to happen.
The Senate voted on a bill – amended to include an increase to the Gross Production Tax – that had support of a majority of House members, just not the 75% required by the Oklahoma Constitution. It received support of all Democrats and all but five Republicans: Brecheen, Dahm, Daniels, Newberry, and Sikes. No surprises there. Any of those five making a conscious choice to help others would have been shocking.
Senate leader Mike Shultz said that this was a long-time coming.
This has been a source of frustration for years. On the other hand, Shultz favored every tax cut that has contributed to the recurring budget shortfalls that have led to our legislative leaders – metaphorically, of course – spinning their wheels in the middle of a field somewhere.
Since this technically wasn’t the bill the House sent to the Senate, it had to be renamed and sent to the House Budget Committee. There we saw a preview of what was coming Wednesday.
Now called HB 1054, the budget plan passed 19-6 out of the Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget Committee**. Calvey and Murphy voting no was as predictable as was the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeing through the tax/fee façade. Kouplen and Proctor, not as much.
Side note: Since the start of the extraordinary session, two legislators have announced they are leaving the House. Minority Leader Scott Inman is one. Apparently, Steve Kouplen is the new pick to lead the Democrats. Based on this week, maybe they should open the process and choose someone new.
This led to Wednesday, when the House spent two hours taking questions and another hour debating HB 1054.
I tried watching the live stream, when I could. I debated with other superintendents what the final vote would be. Few of us expected it to pass. In fact, most of us thought the final number of yes votes would be even lower than 71.
I follow several journalists during the high holy extraordinary sessions. Catherine Sweeney, Dale Denwalt, and Tres Savage are some of the best. I went through their Twitter feeds today to try to recapture what happened Wednesday. Here are some examples of their work:
Ok, aside from Calvey’s dizzying logic, he makes the point that we should audit everything and find waste, fraud, and abuse. On the other hand, this is Calvey’s sixth term in the Legislature. Before he represented Deer Creek, he represented Del City. He’s one of the state’s longest-tenured lawmakers. Why hasn’t he called for these audits before? Other than casting aspersions on public employees, what has he done?
These make me sad. I don’t understand people who say they support teachers and raises for teachers and then vote no when they have a chance to do something.
Let’s face facts: the 2017 legislative session is now six months into overtime. There has been no leadership and nothing resembling a plan. It shows. Holding the vote open for another hour trying to find more votes didn’t help either.
Honestly, listening to Perryman discuss the budget bill, I thought he’d vote against it. I’ve admired him for years. He’s a true populist and a great public servant. I was having a hard time reconciling all of that.
He voted yes.
This was also a clear breaking point for some. They’d raise taxes on consumers, but not producers. It was the hardest thing for me to swallow.
If you look at the names on those vote boards – the greens in particular – you see a lot of people who expended political capital by voting yes. They are Republicans who voted for tax increases on oil and gas companies. They are Democrats who voted for regressive taxes that disproportionately impact the poor. They are people who realized that ideological purity is no substitute for leadership. You can’t govern if you expect to get your way all the time.
Speaking of Roger Ford (R – Midwest City), he’s been blowing up the Facebook world lately. He’s called out House leadership and been more or less live journaling his frustration. Here’s a sample:
To all the people saying don’t give another dime to our agencies, until after they get audited. Well bless your heart! Audits don’t happen overnight. So I guess we shut Oklahoma down for a couple years while we wait. Audits are not in the scope of this special session, so once again it’s not happening! Why can people not get that? What is so hard to understand about that?
I watched a couple no vote legislators smiling and laughing as they exited, walking right past the disabled adults in the rotunda. Never stopping to see their faces. Your life goes on, but what about them?! You changed their world and don’t give a damn.
But in fairness at least they had the decency to walk past them after they voted no. Unlike the coward that snuck in the back door, gave another representative a thumbs down motion to vote for him and immediately walked out the back door. To that young man, everything I learned about you this past year has turned out to be true. You took great joy at throwing stones at others, while you yourself was living in a glass house. To say I’m disappointed is an understatement.
To the ones that held out for a higher GPT, good luck! Any GPT increase drove off with the chartered buses that were parked in front of the Capitol all day. You get 2%, you get 2% and you get 2%. Yay everyone gets 2%! If we can’t get 7, let’s take home nothing! Brilliant idea!!!
Oh yeah, that’s right. There were charter buses there. Here’s a pic.
Enough people – in both parties – held to their principles. As a result, people will suffer.
It’s worth noting that this vote came exactly a year after the vote on State Question 779, which would have given teachers a $5,000 raise. This teacher raise would have been just $3,000, but still, teachers had hope.
With all due respect to the Shawshank Redemption, hope is painful. Hope is thinking that when the stolen truck you’re driving breaks free from the trailer behind you that you’ll be able to elude the police cars and helicopters that surround you. I woke up believing that it might pass. After all, it passed the Senate handily. We all want the same things, right?
Unfortunately, with all the posturing, grandstanding, guest appearances, and unmoored contempt in the House, again, we watched as nothing happened.
I can’t explain the people who sided with Cleveland and Calvey. One walked around the Capitol with a fart machine. The other once threatened self-immolation. I’ll let you google which is which.
I can explain what happens now.
See what you’ve done? I agree with the governor.
You can read the impact of our state’s legislative impotence from an adoptive parent:
Nine years ago, I stepped up and took a large financial burden off the state by adopting three older, traumatized children. In turn, the State agreed to provide certain resources that were minimal to begin with and have eroded over time. More cuts will come down the road if we don’t fix our systemic budget issues very soon. It looks as though lawmakers will probably be able to stave off cataclysmic cuts for now. But short-term measures like raiding the Rainy Day fund instead of making courageous decisions are what got us into this situation in the first place. Unless lawmakers sustainably raise revenues – as voters overwhelmingly want – these near-calamities will continue, and families like mine will bear the cost.
A mother of a disabled teen tried to get answers from legislators:
“We’re concerned, we’re worried,” Jones said as she met with Rep. Shane Stone, D-Oklahoma City. “My son is the client of the Goodwill adult day center in Chickasha, and our understanding is that without a fix on this current budget crisis is that it will close. They will not be able to keep their doors open and there’s nothing else for my kiddo.”As she walked the hallways late Thursday afternoon, she hoped the legislators she talked with would understand and maybe change their “no” to a “yes.”
I have to say that one representative in particular caught my attention for her remarks on Wednesday.
It’s important to remember that over the summer, House Speaker Charles McCall stripped Leslie Osborn of her JCAB chairmanship because she spoke her mind:
Osborn’s removal comes one day after she and two other Republican state representatives criticized house leadership for comments made after the Oklahoma Department of Human services announced last week it was cutting $30 million in services because of a lack of funding from the state.
The men who opposed McCall, by the way, were stripped of nothing.
This all makes me wonder why the Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature don’t change leadership and find someone committed to helping the state. Nobody is entitled to those positions for the duration of their legislative service.
Osburn is right about one thing in particular. We really must remember who voted yes and who voted no on this. I’ve seen written explanations from members of both parties. I accept none of them.
Our system of government requires serious people who know what it means to lead. It requires voters who hold them accountable.
*Technically, it’s called an Extraordinary Session. Indeed it is that.
**Speaking of government inefficiency, I love this committee name.
okeducationtruths 