Education board shy on teacher referendum

Monday, Aug. 16, 1999 | 11:28 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- It doesn't look as if the state Board of Education will take a position on a teachers union proposal to levy a 5 percent tax on business profits for schools.

But board members made clear last week the state must develop a stable tax base to support education.

"The last 10 years the Nevada economy has been booming, and a new governor comes in and one of the first things he has to do is make program and people cuts," Bill Hanlon, a board member from Las Vegas, said. "That ought to give us a pretty good indicator there's a problem with our tax base supporting ongoing continuous educational programs."

In May the Nevada State Education Association, which represents about 90 percent of the teachers in Nevada, voted to support a 5 percent tax on profits of business that could raise up to $150 million for schools. It plans to gather 44,009 signatures of registered voters on an initiative petition to submit to the 2001 Legislature.

The Legislature would have 40 days to approve the plan. If it rejects it or writes an alternative plan, the teachers union proposal will go on the 2002 election ballot.

The issue arose at a three day retreat last week of the state board, which decided its top priority will be to raise student achievement.

"I'm not enamored with the teachers proposal, board member Dave Cook of Carson City said, "but it's a hell of a motivator because if nobody does anything that referendum is going to be there."

Hanlon said he "personally would not have a problem in taking a position" on the teachers tax plan. However he's open to alternatives from Gov. Kenny Guinn or the Legislature. "But the bottom line is we have to have a stable tax base to support our educational system."

The board was told Nevada ranks 41st in expenditures per pupil in the public schools. It's 49th in support of the state Department of Education.

"We can't be so reliant on the Legislature and the Distributive School Fund to meet the needs of the state's education," board member Peggy Lear Bowen of Reno said. The Distributive School Fund is federal money given to states for schools to compensate for lack of property tax from federally owned land.

Bowen suggested the state seek more federal money after State School Superintendent Mary Peterson told the board that Nevada was 50th in getting federal funds but No. 1 in the amount of land owned by the federal government.

"Our obligation is to let the public know what our students need," board member Gary Waters said. "It's not up to the board to establish the funding."

The teachers association noted when it announced its proposal that public schools are not properly funded. There's a need to raise teachers pay and spend more money on training, supplies, summer school and intersession classes.

The Legislature this year did not provide any money for teacher raises. According to the American Federation of Teachers, the average salary in Nevada is $40,572, or 15th in the nation.

Some of the major taxes -- gaming, sales and mining -- are subject to wide swings depending on the economy. It's a "boom or bust" cycle, said Waters.

Hanlon said the teachers' tax proposal puts the question on the table. "The business community, the Legislature and the governor have to say, 'Do we really want this to happen?' If that answer is no, then they have to something else."

Among the other topics discussed was whether the elective state education board was merely a "figurehead" with others wielding the influence over education.

The board has accomplished a great deal, Board President David Sheffield of Elko, said. "But we don't do a good job communicating." It was the board, he said who pushed the high school proficiency testing and graduate credits -- "two big achievements but you only hear about the fallout," he said.

Member Yvonne Shaw, an 11-year member of the board, disagreed. "The Legislature has taken all our authority," she said.

Hanlon said the board has proposed numerous ideas but "other groups have taken the credit." Cook said, "We have the ability to take the leadership and we should do so."

Cook predicted the board would be more of a "risk taker" in the future and not sit back waiting for others to agree with its position.

In 1997 and 1999 bills were introduced in the Legislature to abolish the board. Waters said the board has been criticized on grounds it was not a cohesive unit. "But this is a different board. It's not the same people," he said. "We have many accomplishments but a lot of people don't know that."