Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2007 Senate Bill 237: Appropriations: 2007-2008 school aid budget
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on February 21, 2007, to provide the “template” or “place holder” for a Senate Republican version of a Fiscal Year 2007-2008 multi-section school aid budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them. Note: The governor's proposed budget is contained in Senate Bill 263, and is premised on the legislature adopting a 2 percent tax on services which along with other tax increases and a proposed reduction in business taxes represents a net tax hike of approximately $1 billion.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 21, 2007.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on September 23, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that proposes a budget that cuts some "categorical" spending items, and holds per-pupil foundation grants at the same level as the current year. The substitute passed 21 to 17 in the Senate on September 23, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Passed 21 to 17 in the Senate on September 23, 2007, to adopt a Fiscal Year 2007-2008 school aid budget that provides no increases in per-pupil foundation grants to schools (rather than the $289.7 million, 2.5 percent hike proposed by the governor and approved by the House), and cuts various "categorical" spending items, including $20 million in extra money for school districts with declining enrollments, $20.0 million for extra middle school math programs; and $28 million to schools with high numbers of students from low income families (“at-risk funding”) by $28.0 million, or 9 percent.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on September 23, 2007.
- Motion by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on September 23, 2007, that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills. The defeat of this procedural step was to allow the House to create a counter-proposal to the Senate-passed version. This occurs in the context of a tax hikes vs. spending cuts budget battle. The motion failed 30 to 78 in the House on September 23, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on October 9, 2007.
- Motion by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on September 23, 2007, that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills. The defeat of this procedural step was to allow the House to create a counter-proposal to the Senate-passed version. This occurs in the context of a tax hikes vs. spending cuts budget battle. The motion failed 30 to 78 in the House on September 23, 2007.
Most Recent Comments
1) Money to Admin by Anonymous Citizen on September 24, 2007Any money approved by the legislature will sneek its way into higher administrator pay- no benefit to students.
Reply
Senator Schauer, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill Nos. 511 and 237 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no."
The motion prevailed.
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:
I came to the State Capitol tonight, on a Sunday night, to come together to forge a bipartisan agreement to save our state. With all due respect to the Republican majority caucus, these bills move us no closer to a resolution to our state budget crisis. In fact, they move us backward.
There are one of two possibilities concerning these bills. First, Senate Republicans truly believe that these $900 million in cuts are the way to balance our budget, or second, this is just a game. If the first is true, this approach of mortgaging our future is a nonstarter with Democrats who are committed to protecting our state and gets us no closer to a solution. If this is just a game with just seven days left in our fiscal year, we have wasted another day and have been moved one step closer to a government shutdown.
Let me be clear, colleagues, Democrats here in this chamber are ready to negotiate a solution, but this is not a negotiation. And $900 million in cuts are not a solution. Make no mistake, the cuts supported by Republicans in Senate Bill Nos. 511 and 237 hurt our state, particularly jeopardizing education, health care, and public safety.
Now I found it ironic to this point that no one in support of these bills have risen to speak. I wait with great anticipation to hear a defense of how these bills actually move us forward without hurting our state and jeopardizing our future. Democrats stand ready to work in a bipartisan way to save our state. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to reject these bills and get to the bargaining table. Our future relies upon it.
Reply
Senator Schauer, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurrence in the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole relative to House Bill No.4799 and Senate Bill Nos. 511 and 237.
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:
I voted "no," as did members of my caucus. That was a party-line vote on approving the report of the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole just adopted two bills. One bill was 177 pages long that amended the school aid act, full of cuts to a number of school programs that are very critical to the future of our state. Senate Bill No.511 was a 777-page bill. Both of these bills just landed on our desks. That was an omnibus budget bill that, combined with the other bill, provided for $900 million in cuts, colleagues, to our state--cuts which would hurt our future.
I was glad to vote "no" because this is clearly the wrong direction for our state. Unfortunately, this does nothing to move this process forward where we are striving for bipartissan agreement.
Reply
View Full Conversation
