Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on February 18, 2009, to provide a “template” or “place holder” for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 School Aid budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
  • Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2009.
  • Substitute offered in the Senate on September 25, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that adopts one-month “interim” school aid budget in the event legislators are not able to agree on a full-year budget before Oct. 1, 2009. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on September 25, 2009.
• Passed 21 to 16 in the Senate on September 25, 2009, to make appropriations for a one-month “interim” school aid budget in the event legislators are not able to resolve a large gap between how much they would like to spend and how much taxes, fees, and borrowed money they expect the state to take in during the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2009. This incorporates the spending caps agreed to by House Speaker Andy Dillon and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, which on an annual basis means a $218 cut in per pupil school aid, or around 3 percent.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on September 25, 2009.
  • Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on September 25, 2009.
  • Substitute offered by Rep. George Cushingberry (D) on September 30, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that appropriates money at the same level as the 2008-2009 budget, despite the fact that projected revenues will not cover that amount. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on September 30, 2009.
• Passed 67 to 41 in the House on September 30, 2009, to make appropriations for a one-month “interim” school aid budget in the event legislators are not able to resolve a large gap between how much they would like to spend and how much taxes, fees, and borrowed money they expect the state to take in during the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2009. This appropriates money at the same level as the 2008-2009 budget, despite the fact that projected revenues will not cover that amount.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on October 1, 2009.
  • Amendment offered by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on October 1, 2009, to replace the $218 per pupil school aid reduction spending level (around 3 percent) originally passed by the Senate, thereby rejecting the higher spending level originally passed by the House. The amendment passed 21 to 15 in the Senate on October 1, 2009.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Passed 21 to 15 in the Senate on October 1, 2009, to make appropriations for a one-month “interim” school aid budget for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2009. This rejects the higher spending level approved by the House, and restores the $218 per pupil cut spending rate previously passed by the Senate.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on October 1, 2009, to give the bill immediate effect, without which the budget will not go into effect until around next spring, essentially killing the bill. A two-thirds majority is required. Witholding immediate effect votes is a tool of the Senate minority for stopping time-sensitive bills that have passed. The motion failed 21 to 15 in the Senate on October 1, 2009.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on October 1, 2009.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Terry Brown (D) on October 1, 2009, to remove the $218 per pupil school aid reduction spending level (around 3 percent) in favor of the higher spending level originally passed by the House. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on October 1, 2009.
• Passed 67 to 41 in the House on October 1, 2009, to make appropriations for a one-month “interim” school aid budget for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2009. This appropriates money at the same level as the 2008-2009 budget, despite the fact that projected revenues will not cover that amount. The higher spending level would require either using more federal "stimulus" money being reserved for next year's budget, or a tax increase. Reportedly, using more stimulus money this year means a $400 per pupil shortfall next year.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"