There are days when it’s hard to remember that we live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world and that we should thankful for what we have rather than what we may desire. One of those days is when you learn that Massachusetts (one of the states that is experiencing positive employment growth and, at least for Eastern Mass, growth in both population and the economy) faces a shortfall in revenue that the Governor will make up using selective 9C reductions.
For many, those reductions may not mean much, but for Gateway, they equate to a loss of revenue that may exceed $241,000. For the state, the Governor’s reduction equals 27% of the total allotted to regional school districts for expenses they already paid out in the previous year. I do have several concerns about this specific choice of reductions made by the Governor and wonder what this indicates about the executive branch’s support for regionalization.
My first concern is that the Governor once again has singled out regional school districts with a substantial reduction when a much more modest reduction, albeit one that must be approved by the legislative branch, would have been to reduce Chapter 70 school aid by a correspondingly small percentage. This change would have had an equal impact across all districts in the state and would have been a mere blip compared to the burden now mandated to a small handful of schools.
Another concern is the Governor’s and executive branch’s seeming disregard for the legislative branch, which passed a law requiring that a 9C reduction in regional transportation reimbursement may not exceed the level by which Chapter 70 is reduced (see Chapter 12, Section 15 of the Acts of 2010). The intent of this law was to tie the reduction directly to levels of reductions in Chapter 70 funding. I fail to see how anyone but a lawyer could misinterpret the simple language found in this legislation.
Since regional transportation reimbursement was put into place in 1949 through M.G.L., Chapter 71, Section 16C, we’ve only had a handful of years when the language of the law “the commonwealth shall reimburse such district to the full extent of the amounts expended for such transportation” has been followed. This year, for the first time in ages, the legislature approved a 90 percent reimbursement rate that the Governor has now effectively stripped away using his 9C powers. The intent of the legislation was to give incentives for cities and towns to form regional school districts. Since then, the state has provided other, one-time incentives for towns to look at regionalization, but when you look at the historic support for transportation reimbursement—by both the legislative and executive branch—you can only wonder if they’re at all serious about regionalization.
While I realize the need to close the budget gap at the state level, this particular aspect of the Governor’s proposal as neither fair nor equitable; it is not supportive of education in general, nor regional schools in specifically; and it fails to represent the collaboration between the legislative and executive branches. To that end, I urge everyone to express their concerns over this issue to their legislators and the Governor.
